2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[rav3n]

Well, there is evidently quite a paper trail. I'm not going to go out and automatically yell "fix" if Buttigieg or Biden (god help us all) wins. But I am going to look for plausible explanations as to why it would be different from the AP data I saw last night. If I can find one, I'll accept it. The problem is that many prominent figures in the Democratic party have made their disdain for one of the candidates obvious. They've done this quite publically. Given that, scrutiny might be warranted. Do they care more about stopping Sanders than they do about democratic values? That still remains to be seen. I hope not, especially since that approach would guarantee Trump's re-election.

If a Buttigieg or Biden win looks legit to me, I will certainly defend the results against accusations of rigging and help others to do so even if I don't support the candidate.

If I seem paranoid, please remember that my first election was a year after the media propped up a false narrative about Iraqi WMDs. That experience colors the way I approach politics and the media coverage thereof. It predates Trump and "Fake News" by more than a decade.

Who won the Iowa caucuses? We still don’t have the results. - Vox

The state party said Tuesday morning it expects results later in the day. In explaining what went wrong, the party cited “coding” problems with a new app used to collect the results and hinted at the complexity of this year’s process.

“It became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports,” the party said in a statement. “The underlying cause of the inconsistencies was not immediately clear, and required investigation, which took time.”

This year, for the first time, the Iowa Democratic Party had planned to report how many votes each candidate earned statewide and in each precinct, as well as the number of delegates awarded. But it went badly.

• The results are delayed due to “inconsistencies” in the reports to the state party that showed up during a “quality check” on Monday night, the state party said in a statement.
• Results will be released “as soon as possible” on Tuesday, but are still being tallied.
• This year, precinct chairs were using a new app to report their results to state party headquarters — but the app “was reporting out only partial data” due to a “coding issue in the reporting system,” according to the party’s statement.
• The party says the app problem has been fixed.
• In several statements beginning Monday night, the Iowa Democratic Party emphasized that the app was not hacked and votes have not been tampered with. And there is a paper trail because of the “preference cards” that voters filled out this year.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Who won the Iowa caucuses? We still don’t have the results. - Vox

Well, I'll find out at 4.

 

[rav3n]

Well, I'll find out at 4.

Time will tell but my guess is that Bernie takes it. Regardless, IME, it's an anomaly when new tech is introduced seamlessly. Btw, some of these conspiracy theories were introduced and fapped by the right, prior to the Iowa caucus so it's difficult to give them any creedence.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Time will tell but my guess is that Bernie takes it. Regardless, IME, it's an anomaly when new tech is introduced seamlessly. Btw, some of these conspiracy theories were introduced and fapped by the right, prior to the Iowa caucus so it's difficult to give them any creedence.

Well, while I know Trump is definitely stoking them, I got anxious when I first read about "quality control" last night, before I was aware that he'd tweeted anything. Nor am I aware of any narratives about Iowa being fixed before yesterday. The leftist podcast I listen to seemed overly confident that Bernie would win Iowa and even the nomination (much more so than myself), and they aren't shy of criticizing the democratic establishment by any measure.

The anxieties are relieved somewhat by the fact that I read about a clear paper trail.

I'm also admittedly angry about the fact that a popular-vote loser like John Kerry speculated about throwing his hat in the ring to stop Bernie. I don't think he'd be successful in that. He'd hurt Buttigieg and Biden more than Bernie on the off chance that anyone would actually think that the guy who couldn't secure a popular vote victory against Dubya has a legitimate shot against Trump. But even I am amazed about how out-of-touch, full of it, and clueless he must be to even suggest such a thing. Like, he had a shot to be President before and he was a bigger failure than Hillary or Gore (who I'm respecting more and more for having the good sense to not weigh in on this, not that I ever had an issue with him, unlike Kerry or Clinton) before him.

 

[Maou]

How long before they blame Trump for the whole Iowa fuck up?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, while I know Trump is definitely stoking them, I got anxious when I first read about "quality control" last night, before I was aware that he'd tweeted anything. Nor am I aware of any narratives about Iowa being fixed before yesterday. The leftist podcast I listen to seemed overly confident that Bernie would win Iowa and even the nomination (much more so than myself), and they aren't shy of criticizing the democratic establishment by any measure.

The anxieties are relieved somewhat by the fact that I read about a clear paper trail.

I'm also admittedly angry about the fact that a popular-vote loser like John Kerry speculated about throwing his hat in the ring to stop Bernie. I don't think he'd be successful in that. He'd hurt Buttigieg and Biden more than Bernie on the off chance that anyone would actually think that the guy who couldn't secure a popular vote victory against Dubya has a legitimate shot against Trump. But even I am amazed about how out-of-touch, full of it, and clueless he must be to even suggest such a thing. Like, he had a shot to be President before and he was a bigger failure than Hillary or Gore (who I'm respecting more and more for having the good sense to not weigh in on this, not that I ever had an issue with him, unlike Kerry or Clinton) before him.

I 100% assure you this debacle was entirely to get rid of Sanders, because they know he would win.

 

[rav3n]

How long before they blame Trump for the whole Iowa fuck up?

This is nonsense and you know it.

 

[Jaguar]

And here we go again:

Tech Expert Donald Trump Jr. Claims Iowa Caucus Glitch Is Vast Conspiracy Against Bernie Sanders | Vanity Fair


He never stops.

I think he should be renamed "The First Troll."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I 100% assure you this debacle was entirely to get rid of Sanders, because they know he would win.

You don't know the results yet, though. It's not clear to anyone at this point.

I should note that at this point, a lot of establishment Democrats have come out saying they want to do away with the caucus. The motivation for that could be for any number of reasons.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It was a joke. About Russian trolls. A joke.

 

[rav3n]

'''Wake-up call''': Iowa caucus disinformation serves as warning about 2020 election

Tech companies and election officials spent the past three years working to address the vulnerabilities that allowed Russia to promote disinformation and sow political divisions ahead of the 2016 election.

On Monday night, though, it didn’t take foreign interference to highlight the persistent vulnerabilities around the 2020 election. Americans proved perfectly capable of spreading disinformation on their own.

“This might be a great wake-up call,” said Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, former head of security at Facebook and an NBC cybersecurity analyst. “If it turns out that this disaster has very little long-term effect on the primary, it's a great demonstration of what could go wrong on election night.”

One day after Americans cast their first votes in the election cycle, conspiracy theories, delayed election results and political opportunism intermingled online to create what disinformation researchers warn could be a harbinger of a self-inflicted worst-case scenario for the 2020 election.

Various pieces of false or misleading news circulated, including accusations of voter fraud and phony rumors that a major candidate dropped out. Those claims were amplified by problems with the Iowa Democratic Party’s reporting of the results, which were delayed in part due to problems with its smartphone app — which then generated its own conspiracy theories.

There is no indication that Russia or any other government or company pushed disinformation around the Iowa caucuses.

“As we saw last night, there are domestic actors that are willing to do that and mysterious internet trolls, which could be domestic or foreign,” Stamos said. “But even members of the media, who might be very strongly attached to one side or the other, are happy to amplify.”

The most viral piece of disinformation came from the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which falsely claimed that eight Iowa counties had more voter registrations than citizens. Despite efforts by Paul Pate, Iowa’s secretary of state, to debunk the information by pointing to public county-by-county voter registration totals, the claims were repeated by major conservative media outlets, including The Epoch Times.

Facebook told NBC News that the company’s elections operations center was up and running and that it had been communicating with Pate, the Democratic National Committee, and third-party fact checkers throughout the day. Facebook eventually put warnings on several posts that repeated the Judicial Watch claim indicating that they contained false information.

But that came hours after the story began to spread. The Epoch Times post garnered 175,000 Facebook comments, likes and shares, according to the social media analysis tool Buzzsumo.

On Twitter, where the false claim first gained traction, a company representative said the claims did not violate the company’s election integrity policy, “as it does not suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote.”

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Populists speaking “worker’s language” have historically been popular in the Midwest. Not surprising if Bernie does well in Iowa, probably finishing at least second

 

[Virtual ghost]

Actually this only enforced the narrative that America is collapsing empire.
I mean that seems to be the narrative for the most part in none American media, from what I have noticed.



Plus this is excellent argument why you need to use paper ballot, what also cuts off the whole "mass hacking" hysteria.

 

[rav3n]

They have hard copy backup for the Dem Iowa Caucus.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

We already know it’s not wodka snorters.

Thank you

 

[Virtual ghost]

They have hard copy backup for the Dem Iowa Caucus.

In that case what are we waiting for ?


Elections are too serious stuff for apps, glitches, tech companies .... etc. You posted yourself all the problems that came out of this *error*.
Having a concrete piece of evidence is vital for the safety of the system and with digital tech you just don't have that. Plus you have private companies mixed into the show. I am sorry but all of this strikes me as a really bad idea, if anything this is God given for conspiracy theories.

 

[rav3n]

In that case what are we waiting for ?


Elections are too serious stuff for apps, glitches, tech companies .... etc. You posted yourself all the problems that came out of this *error*.
Having a concrete piece of evidence is vital for the safety of the system and with digital tech you just don't have that. Plus you have private companies mixed into the show. I am sorry but all of this strikes me as a really bad idea, if anything this is God given for conspiracy theories.

How do you know they're not counting?

 

[Jaguar]

62% reporting

Butti 26.9%
Bern 25.1%

Warr 18.3%
Biden 15.6%

 

[Virtual ghost]

How do you know they're not counting?

For me "they have a hard copy" means that the counting is already done. Or at least that the counties have to be summed, or something like that. While in the case they have to do it from scratch then there are no guarantees that the data is "original". I am from the country that isn't much bigger than Iowa in population and more people vote on average that in Iowa. However our system processes 99% of the paper ballots in a few hours and winner is known on the same night. Plus if in some places there is something objectively fishy the elections for that part will repeat, what doesn't strike me that it will be the case here. (and in my opinion it should be)


Caucus plus this glitch is simply something where it is really hard to check or control the data. Next to all this it looks as if I am from very well structured democracy. What I personally find absurd as the idea, but reality simply seems to be telling a different story. While what is extra inconvenient in the whole story is that America places sanctions on other countries for this kind of stuff (and literally the whole world is watching who will go against Trump).

 

[rav3n]

For me "they have a hard copy" means that the counting is already done. Or at least that the counties have to be summed, or something like that. While in the case they have to do it from scratch then there are no guarantees that the data is "original". I am from the country that isn't much bigger than Iowa in population and more people vote on average that in Iowa. However our system processes 99% of the paper ballots in a few hours and winner is known on the same night. Plus if in some places there is something objectively fishy the elections for that part will repeat, what doesn't strike me that it will be the case here. (and in my opinion it should be)


Caucus plus this glitch is simply something where it is really hard to check or control the data. Next to all this it looks as if I am from very well structured democracy. What I personally find absurd as the idea but reality simply seems to be telling a different story. While what is extra inconvenient in the whole story is that America places sanctions on other countries for this kind of stuff (and literally the whole world is watching who will go against Trump).

You're forgetting that they were relying on automation in the first place and when they found anomalies, they had to figure out why and subsequently, accommodate for whatever methodologies they chose. In your country, they're set up for manual counting so there's no delay in doing so, staffed with sufficient manpower to handle it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You're forgetting that they were relying on automation in the first place and when they found anomalies, they had to figure out why and subsequently, accommodate for whatever methodologies they chose. In your country, they're set up for manual counting so there's no delay in doing so, staffed with sufficient manpower to handle it.

I know. But I still somehow find all of this too slow. Here they have to process 1.5 million votes out of 4 million people, while in Iowa there is something like 3 million people with only a few hundred thousand votes (if I got it right). Also who was protecting all the hard data during the night ... too many loose ends for my liking.



I mean it was a glitch but this kind of stuff simply looks bad on the record.