For a while, I've been saying that Iowa doesn't matter.

[MineralMan]

For that, I've been castigated by many. Now, it's clear that Iowa's caucus results will never really be trusted by anyone. This should make it more than clear that it's time to stop using the caucus system for primary candidate voting.

I know the caucus system, since I've been a caucus convener and chair more than once in Minnesota. Our 2016 caucus was a nightmare, but nobody really knew that. There was no training for caucus chairs or conveners. No ballots were available, so we had to use folded scraps of paper that people wrote the name of their choice on.

Two precincts in my St. Paul ward occupied the same classroom at the school where the caucuses were held. Two chairs; two conveners and people who had no idea which precinct was theirs.

We muddled through the process, did an accurate vote count, and turned a report and all ballots in to the people we were supposed to, but the whole thing was a disaster.

In Minnesota, the 2016 caucuses were why we switched to primary elections.

Caucuses are basically amateur hour, as Iowa's caucuses yesterday demonstrate very well.

Iowa will not matter in 2020, because nobody will ever trust the results that get reported. And they shouldn't, either. They will not be accurate, due to the amateuristic way the entire thing was handled.

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. +1

[getagrip_already]

2. exactly....

Caucuses are entertainment, not democracy.

[cornball 24]

3. In total agreement. Thank you for sharing your experience.

[COLGATE4]

4. Absolutely right. +1

[dalton99a]

5. Iowa and New Hampshire are meaningless, and caucuses are bullshit.

[MineralMan]

6. It's time for a change in how all of this is done.

Putting two of the least diverse states in the country at the beginning of primary voting and having an amateur-run caucus system in one of them is a recipe for disaster.

Now, that recipe has been badly cooked and nobody wants to eat any of it.

What a clusterf**k!

Iowa is going to taint the entire 2020 primary season.

[Gothmog]

7. Iowa will not be first in the nation next cycle

And there will be no more caususes

[MineralMan]

8. I sincerely hope that's true.

Feh!

[Hortensis]

23. Nothing against Iowa, but sure hope so for caucuses. nt

[DanTex]

9. TLDR: you thought Biden would get crushed, and he did.

And lucky for him, the fiasco will distract from the fact that he poured millions into Iowa and likely got fourth.

[MineralMan]

11. Since we have no official results, you are just guessing, to be quite frank.

Neither you nor I know what the results will show. I'm not talking about any results, and you should not be either. This is about a disastrous primary event that will forever be mistrusted. That's what I'm talking about, while you are playing the same game you've been playing all along.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE RESULTS FROM IOWA!

[DanTex]

19. Everyone knows Biden did horribly. Every campaign's internals show that.

But spin away. It's about as credible as Biden saying he didn't care about Iowa while pouring huge money into it, both from his campaign and his SuperPAC.

I will say, congrats, he dodged a bullet with this fiasco. If not for the fiasco, his campaign might have been over right now. But there was a fiasco, and that helps distract from how poorly he did. I think that the bid Dem donors who were already worried about Biden took notice, though.

[MineralMan]

22. I'm not spinning, because I have no idea what the actual results are.

Maybe later today we'll know. Then I'll comment on those results. Right now, I'm talking about what a disaster the whole thing was.

You're trying to politicize that. OK. I don't care. Iowa doesn't matter. It never did, and now it matters even less.

[Demsrule86]

53. I am fine with the numbers...never thought he would do well in two lily white states...

but after New Hampshire, we live the lily white and go into the real world of Democrats...POC ....I think Nevada will be a wash as Sanders did pretty well there last time...and New Hampshire is in his backyard but after that, I don't think he will do well...Biden did fine a respectable showing in Iowa...and who knows could be he ties for third in the end or even goes up a little bit. Iowa should not have released partial numbers. I don't trust the numbers anyway. The process was a shit show. And such few voters doesn't even measure Iowa voters much less give an indication where the race is going...Caucuses are undemocratic and lower participation. I have a bit more hope for Nevada because they have added early voting.

[R B Garr]

32. Actually, if you look at the history of the caucuses, then you see that regardless of Biden,

they are chaotic, hostile, and unreliable. Particularly the most recent history of them last election cycle. This OP goes into great detail of a caucus during that time.

It was all over the news from 2016. In fact, it still is. How could you have missed it?

[DanTex]

36. The history also shows that candidates care a lot about Iowa until

they think they’re going to get crushed at which point they say Iowa doesn’t matter.

[R B Garr]

37. It looks like you have yet more gaps in the actual news cycles that show

what really happened, though.

But so much for the war on centrists since Mayor Pete beat Bernie.

[DanTex]

38. LOL. No, I saw what happened. Biden and his SuperPAC dumped millions into Iowa.

Their poll numbers tanked. And so he started "managing expectations". It's not complicated...

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

39. The only candidate who skipped Iowa was Bloomberg.

Unless you skip it, then you spend money there, hello. LOL, it's called campaigning. But I have heard more about South Carolina than Iowa from Biden's campaign. That is what the actual news cycles report.

But so much for the war on centrists since Mayor Pete beat Bernie.

[DanTex]

40. Yes, but unlike the other candidates, Biden got crushed.

Hence the Biden people like Jennifer Rubin pretending they never cared about Iowa to begin with.

[R B Garr]

43. Just one example, Warren got 35 more votes than Biden -- hardly crushed, LOL

with those kinds of quantities. Just another reason why South Carolina is what they've talked about more.

BTW, you obviously didn't read the Rubin articles. I think I'm seeing why there are gaps in some things you post versus what actually occurred as reported in news cycles.

But so much for the war on centrists since Mayor Pete beat Sanders.

[DanTex]

45. Fourth place is getting crushed.

His big wall street guys funding his SuperPAC are panicking. All that money for fourth place. They might try to get behind Pete now, who will get crushed in SC.

And after that happens, Rubin will be talking about how SC doesn't matter...

[R B Garr]

46. Speaking of getting crushed, Bernie spent 5 years in Iowa and a "centrist" beat him.

So much for the war on centrists.

Five years Bernie has been campaigning for President and he couldn't eek out a dominating win in Iowa.

[DanTex]

48. Good showing by Pete and Bernie. Pete will probably get some of the big money donors

to shift to him. Until South Carolina...

[R B Garr]

49. LOL, this is another illustration of why your information is unreliable, considering

there is a history of data that has shown who polls well in South Carolina and who doesn't poll well in South Carolina. There is history from the last election cycle. We don't just get to make things up.

[DanTex]

51. LOL indeed. Your "history of data" showing Pete killing it in South Carolina.

[R B Garr]

56. The polls missed Pete's popularity in Iowa. But look at you trying to pretend

that Sanders doesn't have problems with polling with black voters in South Carolina.

[Demsrule86]

55. Your kidding yourself...the number between Biden and Warren are tiny.

[R B Garr]

41. If you actually read those Rubin articles, the gist is that no one

will be dropping out. I'll let you figure out the rest by actually reading past the headlines. I'm starting to see why there are gaps in your information since a lot of things don't really match what the news actually reports.

[DanTex]

42. Yes, Jennifer Rubin, paragon of even-handed consistency. Nice one.

[R B Garr]

44. This illustrates why some of the information you post is so unreliable.

You obviously didn't read the article for content. You just posted it since you think the headline is some kind of big gotcha when really she was talking about the events that occurred from the date of the first article to the date of the second article. LOL, that's how it works.

[DanTex]

47. Yes, the event that occurred between the articles was Biden tanking in polls.

It's not complicated, you don't need to a "Jennifer Rubin whisperer" to see that she's a right-winger who will say whatever she can to spin things against the most progressive candidates in the race.

[R B Garr]

50. That's not what the articles say. More of your misinformation campaign.

It wasn't a spin against the most progressive candidate. LMAO, but thanks for proving right here and right now that you are just riffing and that you didn't even read the articles...

[Demsrule86]

54. Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire.

Two lily white states...really do not tell us how the rest of the country votes unless we believe they do...and I don't...bet more folks than me feel the same way.

[Thomas Hurt]

10. Caucuses suck at picking the next President...they are better at picking the nominee.

[denem]

12. Wishful thinking.

Biden is not toast, but he got burned badly in IA. A 4th in NH would finish him off.

[LongtimeAZDem]

17. Nonsense; we've said for a long time that these first two will likely go to others

Then the scene will shift to states where Biden and moderates do well, and Warren and Sanders have little support.

Biden is no amateur, and this has a long way to go.

[FloridaBlues]

29. Sorry it won't finish him off. Don't dismiss any candidate at this point.

[denem]

31. Yep. That was over the top.

I apologize.

[George II]

13. What I saw last night was a joke, right down to allowing network news people in the room....

...and interviewing caucus goers WHILE they were making up their minds!

Who needs Russian interference when we have CNN, MSNBC, etc. interfering with the process?

[MineralMan]

14. It reminds me of The Little Rascals from decades ago:

Hey, gang! Let's put on a show!

Amateur Hour in Iowa!

[dalton99a]

16. +1. Some should have said "Hi, Mom!"

Ridiculous system

[barbtries]

15. my son and i were just talking about that last night.

it's ridiculous that Iowa gets so much press and influence really. a small state, practically all white, doing a caucus instead of a primary. it's not the story of the election. i'm not sure why it's played up so hard.

[MineralMan]

18. It's all because it's first. The news media needs something to talk about,

so Iowa is it. The first primary season event. It gets all hyped up because there is a 24/7 news cycle that needs content.

Iowa sends a tiny delegation to the convention. It is a lily-white rural state. It never has represented the United States in any terms that make any sense. But, it's the first event of the primary season, so it gets way, way more attention than it deserves.

I hope that 2020 demonstrates that the process needs to change, and needs to change drastically.

The Super Tuesday states in 2020 would have been a much better start to the primary season. All together, those states do represent the diversity of the nation.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina do not represent it well at all. They should not be at the forefront of primary season. Not in any way at all.

I'm disgusted.

[SWBTATTReg]

20. Me too (disgusted). Perhaps a better and more efficient way can be done in picking our ...

candidates that would be less expensive and maybe reflect a better method of picking candidates, e.g., mail ins w/ ranked choices down the line.

Maybe the Iowa folks are being cautious in reporting results, want to be accurate in reporting their results and probably are crossing the T's and dotting the I's, especially with so much talk of election interference.

[MineralMan]

21. I'm sure the Democratic Party folks in Iowa are doing their best

in a bad situation, but the damage has already been done due to bad planning and execution of a complex event.

Can they recover? Probably not. Whatever they report will now be questioned, since they dropped the ball from the beginning.

The 2020 Iowa Caucuses will never be trusted, nor will the official results that get reported. There will always be a shadow over this.

They blew it, and it's too late now to fix that. The only hope is that four years from now, they do something different, but that won't affect the disaster 2020 is and will be.

[SWBTATTReg]

25. Good points and a shame...but like they say, you learn and move on. They do, as you say, have a...

credibility issue. They'll have to work this out. They chose to be in front (first in the primary process) and the spotlights are glaring on them. Wish them the best of course, but ... have quite a bit of work ahead of them.

[redstatebluegirl]

24. The whole caucus process is nuts.

It is more than outdated. Lets go to paper ballots, everywhere!

[cwydro]

35. But it's been pointed out that there ARE paper ballots in Iowa.

Isn’t that right?

[Kentonio]

26. You kept saying it, and you kept being wrong.

It’s not instant death to a candidate not winning, but it has a massive importance to the race traditionally and everybody knows it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. The impact of the Iowa caucuses has always been inflated all out of proportion

just because it's the first election of the primaries. So, the media try to portray it as a harbinger of what's to come and make a big deal over whoever "wins." The "winner" then gets a big publicity boost and a whole lot of blather from the talking heads about how now they're the front-runner (and now they have a media target on their back, too, because it's no fun if you can't drag down the front-runner). The "losers" complain about how caucuses aren't fair (which is true). But no matter what happens it's worth only 41 pledged delegates. It was always amateur hour and technology seems to have made it even worse. I do feel sorry, though, for all the people - candidates, campaign staff and caucus volunteers - who put great effort into this goat rodeo.

[FloridaBlues]

28. Couldn't agree about Iowa. They should wait and give entire results

[Scurrilous]

30. Iowa and NH.

Found on Twitter. One county in Texas with more registered Democrats than Iowa and NH combined.

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

33. Thanks, great info! The caucus problems were all too evident the last cycle, but

with Bernie's campaign reporting today only the areas he did well in while interviewed on his plane, it's pretty evident he was trying to cherry pick what he wanted to accentuate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. I trust that Bernie won... that's all that REALLY matters!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[elleng]

52. It matters ONLY because it's FIRST,

takes up the oxygen in the room until NH comes in.