Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; Trump team suggests contest 'rigged' - Beyond Parody

From Fox News (archive)
--------
The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) still has not reported official vote totals in the critical Iowa caucuses as of early Tuesday morning, in a largely unexplained and unprecedented delay that has raised questions about the legitimacy of the contest -- and campaign officials are livid, Fox News has learned.

The Trump campaign, meanwhile, openly suggested that the delay meant that the caucuses were being "rigged," and that the embarrassing night proved that the Democratic Party can't be trusted to run Americans' health care and implement sweeping new government programs. Even if a winner is ultimately announced, the chaos and confusion has seemingly erased any hope for the major momentum boost that would normally result.

"We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results," the IDP said in a statement at 11:30 p.m. ET. "In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results."

Fox News is told that during a call with the campaigns, an IDP representative said the party would be "getting photos of the paper results sent over," but didn't answer any questions and then hung up on all the campaigns, even as frustrated staffers pushed for answers. A campaign staffer told Fox News the brief call was "crazy." A second campaign official told Fox News, “Yes, they did hang up.”

The Biden campaign then wrote to the IDP, complaining about the "considerable flaws" in the caucus reporting process.

"The app that was intended to relay Caucus results to the Party failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system likewise has failed," the campaign wrote in a letter. "Now, we understand that Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically to the Party. These acute failures are occurring statewide. We appreciate that you plan to brief the campaigns momentarily on these issues, and we plan to participate. However, we believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released."

About an hour earlier, IDP spokesperson Mandy McClure said in a statement, "The integrity of the results is paramount. We have experienced a delay in the results due to quality checks and the fact that the IDP is reporting out three data sets for the first time. What we know right now is that around 25% of precincts have reported, and early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016."

Turnout in the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Iowa was 171,109. That was far below the nearly 240,000 that took part in the 2008 Democratic caucuses, when then-Sen. Barack Obama won the contest.

"With every passing minute that there is a delay, we worry that the process will lose credibility," a top Elizabeth Warren aide told CNN.

In a surreal moment shortly before Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took the stage to thank her supporters -- even as no voting results were available -- a precinct chief was being interviewed on CNN while he was on hold for more than an hour with the IDP to report results. The IDP then hung up on the precinct chief live on-air after he was too slow to respond once they took him off hold.

At least four precincts had to resolve ties in their vote results by flipping a coin during the evening, Fox News has learned.

Speaking at 11:30 p.m. ET, former Vice President Joe Biden said he felt good about the caucus, then remarked, "It's on to New Hampshire! ... We're in this for the long haul."

Taking the microphone ten minutes later, Sanders said that when the results were in, he had a "good feeling we're going to be doing very very well here in Iowa."

For the first time ever, the IDP has previously said it will report three sets of results at the end of the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses: a tally of caucus-goers’ initial candidate preference; vote totals from the “final alignment” after supporters of lower-ranking candidates were able to make a second choice, and the total number of State Delegate Equivalents each candidate receives. There is no guarantee that all three will show the same winner.

Earlier in the evening, an IDP official told Fox News the party was doing “quality control checks, making sure the numbers are accurate,” adding that “people are still caucusing; we are working to report results soon.”
----

tl;dr: Results from the Democratic Iowa Caucus are late coming in, DNC is blaming an app and claiming they are currently doing "quality control."
 
At this point a third party split off coalescing around Bernie and the Squad of Socialist nitwits is inevitable. This might actually be a good thing, as among other things it would shatter the one party status of California and Illinois.
I'm not sure. That has never stuck around for very long in the past. Congressional caucus rules make it so parties always coalesce back into two after a split.

We are definitely in the middle of a political realignment though. Trump is the most socially-moderate GOPer ever and the fiscally-conservative non-interventionist wing is clearly running shit with Republicans, the replacement of the Christian and Neocon dominance of the party that has existed since Reagan. That shift has been made and cemented into place.

How the Dems respond by realigning the old-guard public sector and union types, the minority identity movements, the regulation-heavy crony capitalists, and the socialists, who knows.
 
I don't understand how you could even be a Democrat in 2020.

Vote Third Party. Restart the Whig Party. Burn down the Clinton's home with the Clintons still inside it.

Have some fucking self respect, libs.

I know some vote Dem purely because they dont like Trump, and others because Dems advertise themselves as "the good guys" and with Harry Potter logic if they didn't support the good guys 101% of the time regardless of literally anything they're evil
 

Attachments

I'm not sure. That has never stuck around for very long in the past. Congressional caucus rules make it so parties always coalesce back into two after a split.

We are definitely in the middle of a political realignment though. Trump is the most socially-moderate GOPer ever and the fiscally-conservative non-interventionist wing is clearly running shit with Republicans, the replacement of the Christian and Neocon dominance of the party that has existed since Reagan. That shift has been made and cemented into place.

How the Dems respond by realigning the old-guard public sector and union types, the minority identity movements, the regulation-heavy crony capitalists, and the socialists, who knows.

The Legend of Reagan is very very different from what the actuality was. The truth is Reagan was very very moderate in many regards, and was as far from a Neo Con as you could get. His legacy was grabbed up and compromised by the Neo Cons, but he was never one of them. If you were to line up John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump on stage, and run down their actual policies and actions in office you would be hard pressed to find much if any policy difference between them. And Kennedy would be the closest one to a Neo Con. Reagan and Trump both believe in Peace through Strength. Have a big enough and good enough military that nobody challenges you, and then don't squander it on pointless foreign misadventures that serve no valid American Interests.

Remember Reagan was at one time a Democratic Politician. He was the President of a Labor Union. And Reagan was not in most regards a Bible Thumping Christian. He was a Christian, but that's about as far as he would ever go in discussing his faith. He felt that faith was important. But it was also a fairly personal matter. The various special interests on the Right have long cannibalized Reagan to try and represent themselves as the true heirs of the Reagan Legacy. Pretty much all of them are full of shit and always have been. They have more in common with Newt Gingrich and his contract with America than any of them have with Reagan. I suspect you will see the same thing when Trump exits the stage. Oddly the Dem's rarely do this with any of their Presidents past JFK. Nobody wants to pick up the mantle of LBJ or Jimmy Carter. And they will only touch Bill Clinton's while wearing 2 pairs of rubber gloves.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
View attachment 1133065


This guy works for the NYT so.......god fucking damnit they are really going there. I said it as a sarcastic joke and they are really fucking going there.

>Imagine being so booty-blasted about GooberGunt in The Year of Our Lord 2020 that you compare everything to it.

GamerGate of all things caused this much collective butthurt for SIX YEARS.

In the six years these journos had spent kvetching about GoombaGoo regular folk have largely forgotten it. Hell, I took part in it and I've largely forgotten it. Why are these people so hung up on it, is it their cringey, gay little Vietnam or 9/11?

What was so traumatizing about being held accountable and hot bantz?

Moreover, what the fuck does GamerGate have to do with the Democratic Party's 2020 Iowa Caucus?
 
The Legend of Reagan is very very different from what the actuality was. The truth is Reagan was very very moderate in many regards, and was as far from a Neo Con as you could get. His legacy was grabbed up and compromised by the Neo Cons, but he was never one of them. If you were to line up John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump on stage, and run down their actual policies and actions in office you would be hard pressed to find much if any policy difference between them. And Kennedy would be the closest one to a Neo Con. Reagan and Trump both believe in Peace through Strength. Have a big enough and good enough military that nobody challenges you, and then don't squander it on pointless foreign misadventures that serve no valid American Interests.

Remember Reagan was at one time a Democratic Politician. He was the President of a Labor Union. And Reagan was not in most regards a Bible Thumping Christian. He was a Christian, but that's about as far as he would ever go in discussing his faith. He felt that faith was important. But it was also a fairly personal matter. The various special interests on the Right have long cannibalized Reagan to try and represent themselves as the true heirs of the Reagan Legacy. Pretty much all of them are full of shit and always have been. They have more in common with Newt Gingrich and his contract with America than any of them have with Reagan. I suspect you will see the same thing when Trump exits the stage. Oddly the Dem's rarely do this with any of their Presidents past JFK. Nobody wants to pick up the mantle of LBJ or Jimmy Carter. And they will only touch Bill Clinton's while wearing 2 pairs of rubber gloves.
I dunno about that. Reagan certainly wasn't opposed to some military adventurism. Angola, Nicaragua, Iraq/Iran, Afghanistan, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, etc. 600 ship Navy. Star Wars. "Evil Empire". Praying Mantis. Able Archer. He was a hawk, not a dove, who sought to push US interests through military spending, influence, and intervention. Add in the advancement of free market capitalism (deregulation) and that's pretty much the definition of NeoCon. Barry Goldwater with a twist.

The religious thing, yeah. He wasn't one of those. But they did hold a significant amount of power in the party during his time. Those Satanic Panics didn't start for no reason.
 
I dunno about that. Reagan certainly wasn't opposed to some military adventurism. Angola, Nicaragua, Iraq/Iran, Afghanistan, Grenada, Colombia, Libya, Lebanon, etc. 600 ship Navy. Star Wars. "Evil Empire". Praying Mantis. Able Archer. He was a hawk, not a dove, who sought to push US interests through military spending, influence, and intervention. Add in the advancement of free market capitalism (deregulation) and that's pretty much the definition of NeoCon. Barry Goldwater with a twist.

The religious thing, yeah. He wasn't one of those. But they did hold a significant amount of power in the party during his time. Those Satanic Panics didn't start for no reason.

And yet Reagan put remarkably few US soldiers in harms way. He may have funded or supplied various proxies throughout the world in the great cold war proxy fight. But he never invaded them. Save Grenada. Which was over by lunchtime. Reagan believed in having and maintaining a strong professional military. One that could easily take on any challengers. But in doing so it would ideally preclude the need to actually use it. Really Reagan's only major Military operations were a single night of bombing Libya, directly targeting Khadafy, not simply random Libyan's, and giving the Marine's a day pass to Grenada. Which is actually rather remarkable considering the rapid wave of instability and growing militarism sweeping through the top of the Soviet Union for much of Reagan's Presidency. They had 4 Premier's in the span of 3 years. And a few of them were not very nice or diplomatic people. Most remember Brezhnev and Gorbachev. Few remember Andropov or Chernenko and just they represented. Thankfully they failed to consolidate power fast enough and found themselves "retired".
 
I can go with this, sure

I absolutely agree that Trump cares nothing about the Christian base that traditionally supports the Republican party, c.f. his promotion of AIDS in Botswana, but warmongers?

Is there a neocon that Trump hasn't appointed? Is there anyone who's decent and pro-American worker, pro-peace who stood up for him at the start that he hasn't stood by and watched destroyed? Why hasn't Mike Flynn been pardoned?

Why won't he appoint Kris Kobach to protect American workers?

Trump's least bad appointee has been Robert Lighthizer, who only seriously pushed for labor and environmental protections to make manufacturing in Mexico rather than the US less cheap for US companies after unions forced congressional Democrats to stand up for American workers. If Trump's GOPe and its Paul Ryan agenda hadn't botched the midterms by refusing to actually push for radical reforms in favor of the American worker*, none of that would have happened.

* to be clear, that should start with cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, rather than pardoning the few who actually pay a fraction of what they deserve for their crimes
He recently showed up at the March for Life (anti abortion rally, noted for being the host of one Nicholas Sandmann), he issues "religious freedom" stuff all the time, and he's known for showing up at church services without even doing his hair beforehand. He apparently also mocks the fuck out of neocons, and Bolton was apparently the brunt of most of his sarcasm when he was in office.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman
If the democrats dont somehow win the election after this debacle, I genuinely think we will see a fully fledged third party split occur.

I mean how the hell would they be able to walk back from this if they lose to Trump again despite pulling all this shit?!

Oh god please let this happen. Trump vs independent Bernie vs glow nigger

Ideally Trump would get just below 270 and the other two would split the remainder. This would mean that the election would go to the house of reps where each state gets a single vote. Can you imagine the monumental asshurt if Trump loses the electoral and popular vote but gets >26 state delegations:story:

I think I would die of laughter.
 
>Imagine being so booty-blasted about GooberGunt in The Year of Our Lord 2020 that you compare everything to it.

GamerGate of all things caused this much collective butthurt for SIX YEARS.

In the six years these journos had spent kvetching about GoombaGoo regular folk have largely forgotten it. Hell, I took part in it and I've largely forgotten it. Why are these people so hung up on it, is it their cringey, gay little Vietnam or 9/11?

What was so traumatizing about being held accountable and hot bantz?

Moreover, what the fuck does GamerGate have to do with the Democratic Party's 2020 Iowa Caucus?
GG was the first time they found out people didn't agree with them, and they can't let themselves forget it to their peril.
 

Associated Press unable to declare winner of Iowa caucuses

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.

With 97% of precincts reporting from Monday’s caucuses, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by three state delegate equivalents out of 2,098 counted. That is a margin of 0.14 percentage points.

However, even as the Iowa Democratic Party’s effort to complete its tabulation of the caucus results continues, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Thursday asked the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct a recanvass. That is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly.

Perez sought the recanvass following days of uncertainty about the results reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, which includes technology problems with the mobile phone app used by the party to collect results from caucus sites, an overwhelming number of calls to the party’s backup phone system and a subsequent delay of several days of reporting the results.

The Iowa Democratic Party suggested it may not comply with Perez’s request, issuing a statement that said it would conduct a recanvass if one was requested by one of the candidates.

Further, the party has yet to report results from some satellite caucus sites, from which there are still an unknown number of state delegate equivalents to be won.

“The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner. Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year’s caucus process, it is not possible to determine a winner at this point,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s senior vice president and executive editor.

The AP will continue to report and review the results from the Iowa Democratic Party as it completes its tabulation, as well as the results of any potential recanvass or recount.
 

Associated Press unable to declare winner of Iowa caucuses

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.

With 97% of precincts reporting from Monday’s caucuses, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by three state delegate equivalents out of 2,098 counted. That is a margin of 0.14 percentage points.

However, even as the Iowa Democratic Party’s effort to complete its tabulation of the caucus results continues, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Thursday asked the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct a recanvass. That is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly.

Perez sought the recanvass following days of uncertainty about the results reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, which includes technology problems with the mobile phone app used by the party to collect results from caucus sites, an overwhelming number of calls to the party’s backup phone system and a subsequent delay of several days of reporting the results.

The Iowa Democratic Party suggested it may not comply with Perez’s request, issuing a statement that said it would conduct a recanvass if one was requested by one of the candidates.

Further, the party has yet to report results from some satellite caucus sites, from which there are still an unknown number of state delegate equivalents to be won.

“The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner. Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year’s caucus process, it is not possible to determine a winner at this point,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s senior vice president and executive editor.

The AP will continue to report and review the results from the Iowa Democratic Party as it completes its tabulation, as well as the results of any potential recanvass or recount.
Genuinely funny. They're going to use this 'recanvass' as an excuse to try and pretend Sanders didn't win even when the satellite caucuses they weren't able to tamper with are counted.
 

"The Iowa Democratic Party suggested it may not comply with Perez’s request, issuing a statement that said it would conduct a recanvass if one was requested by one of the candidates.

The local reps of the party refusing to comply with the DNC. Wew ... Perez getting cucked on all sides.
 

Associated Press unable to declare winner of Iowa caucuses

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Associated Press said Thursday that it is unable to declare a winner of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses.

With 97% of precincts reporting from Monday’s caucuses, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg leads Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by three state delegate equivalents out of 2,098 counted. That is a margin of 0.14 percentage points.

However, even as the Iowa Democratic Party’s effort to complete its tabulation of the caucus results continues, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Thursday asked the Iowa Democratic Party to conduct a recanvass. That is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly.

Perez sought the recanvass following days of uncertainty about the results reported by the Iowa Democratic Party, which includes technology problems with the mobile phone app used by the party to collect results from caucus sites, an overwhelming number of calls to the party’s backup phone system and a subsequent delay of several days of reporting the results.

The Iowa Democratic Party suggested it may not comply with Perez’s request, issuing a statement that said it would conduct a recanvass if one was requested by one of the candidates.

Further, the party has yet to report results from some satellite caucus sites, from which there are still an unknown number of state delegate equivalents to be won.

“The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner. Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year’s caucus process, it is not possible to determine a winner at this point,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s senior vice president and executive editor.

The AP will continue to report and review the results from the Iowa Democratic Party as it completes its tabulation, as well as the results of any potential recanvass or recount.

Iowa Democrat voters should be fucking outraged by this. Are they cucking themselves out of storming the DNC to demand what the hell is going on?
 
Back