What Did — And Didn’t — Go Down In The Iowa Caucuses

I agree with that, Perry. And the margin matters here, too. But if we’re talking days … then maybe it’s a different story.

Whoever wins is going to be pissed that he or she didn’t get to give a big caucus night victory speech. On the other hand, 2008 was a long time ago. I feel like we might be out of the big speech era. If somehow has a compelling line or two that they give at 2 a.m., I still think that can go viral and that will still matter.

You have to ask yourself. If the PARTY HAD JUST DECIDED, would I be in bed now? (I’m on the West Coast, it’s not even that late here, I’m doing fine.) Read this excellent story by Geoffrey Skelley while you wait.

OK, well Klobuchar wins the “first to get on TV” race; she’s making a speech to supporters, decked out in her red suit. It’s just that there’s no results to react to. Just supporters to thank. We’ll see who comes out next.

Lots of outlets are now reporting that the app that caucus chairs were supposed to use to report results failed, and that’s the reason for the delay.

Can’t wait to wait again in a few weeks when the delegate stakes are much, much higher:

Our friends at ABC News are reporting that campaigns expecting to get briefed at caucus headquarters on vote delays soon.

At this point I really do think I’d bet against the Iowa caucus being the first event of 2024. (Also, I’m wrong a lot.)

While I have you here, readers, the United States government on Friday banned immigrants from coming to the United States from six nations, including Africa’s most popolous country, Nigeria. This is big news that might have gotten more coverage except for the Iowa caucuses and impeachment happening around the same time. But it’s a very important story.

The challenge with changing the primary calendar is the assorted actors — the national party, the state parties, the state government (for setting state-run primary dates). You can’t just snap your fingers and change things.

Still just entrance polls to report on, but this stat is interesting: Most candidates don’t show a substantial difference in first choices among voters who decided in the last few days and those who decided earlier — the exceptions are Sanders, who does better among those who decided earlier, and Klobuchar, who does better among recent deciders. But we won’t see until later how often this will end up helping her over the viability threshold.

Way to rain on everyone’s parade, Rakich.

I mean, there wouldn’t be an “Iowa replacement.” We’d just skip straight to New Hampshire. Any state that votes before New Hampshire would have to be a caucus state, and that would have the same problems as Iowa.

Or Illinois could go first! Geoffrey and Laura proposed a new calendar for Democrats that is more representative of the party last year, and it was Illinois that won out on this metric. New York wasn’t far off, in third.

Since Perry brought up New York as an Iowa replacement, it is worth noting that the primary date there always resets to the first Tuesday in February after every presidential election cycle. That allows the state to revisit the date every four years. But the first Tuesday in February is (checks calendar) tomorrow. What could have been if they had just left well enough alone in Albany. Technically, they’d have been staring down penalties from the national party, but that’s a story for another time.

While most Americans probably aren’t holding their breath for results from Iowa, the people responsible for tomorrow’s media narrative — journalists — are. Based on a sample of about 30 people in our newsroom, journalists are getting increasingly annoyed. Those same journalists are going to be responsible for tomorrow’s narrative, and it’s growing increasingly likely that that narrative will be: SHITSHOW IN IOWA

My sister flew out at like 6 p.m. from the East Coast to California and just landed before any Iowa votes came out.

Since Iowa seems to be forfeiting its right to be the first state to vote, here’s a surprising suggestion if the Democrats want to change it up: New York. The Democratic electorate, at least in 2016, was about 60 percent white, 19 percent black, 14 percent Latino. The Democratic electorate in the New York primary in 2016: 59 percent white, 22 black, 14 Latino.

I agree, Perry — I’m also surprised that the current estimated vote total is closer to 2016 (171,000) than 2008 (240,000). One thing in Pew’s recent national survey that surprised me along this lines is that despite all of the talk about electability and wanting a candidate who can beat Trump, only 44 percent in that survey said they expected Democrats to nominate someone who could win. (Thirty four percent didn’t offer an opinion and 22 percent said they think Trump will win.)

For what it’s worth, the biggest concern with the app going into tonight was the fact that the Iowa Democratic Party refused to provide any details about it, like who made it or how it was secured. As many experts will tell you, obscurity does not equal security. The reports earlier today indicated users having trouble with things like downloading the app due to poor cell phone reception, which doesn’t necessarily signal that the app failed in some way that would cause a delay. I have my concerns about the app, but I also don’t like jumping to conclusions without evidence.

It’s a teaser, Tony!

Wow, Laura, way to spoil the upcoming video!

Overheard in the newsroom:
Galen: “So the headline is: A Shitshow In Iowa?”
Nate: “Or in New York Times style: In Iowa, A Shitshow”

To build on Perry’s point, one key difference between today and 2008 is that there have been a lot more candidates in this election, and that should help drive up turnout. So I, too, am surprised if turnout is at the same (lower) level as 2016. But on the flip side, Iowa today is a redder state than it was in 2008. Hillary Clinton won 654,000 votes there, well shy of Obama’s 829,000.

Only the most committed caucusgoers are left as the meeting winds down. This is the remnant of the Sanders supporters. Still some random bursts of cheering, but everyone looks a little tired.

Welp, for those who are claiming that the headline of the evening will be the lack of results. Drudge Report seems to concur.

By 11 p.m. Eastern in 2008, 98 percent of Iowa precincts were already reporting. By 11 p.m. Eastern in 2016, 90 percent of precincts were reporting. At 11 p.m. Eastern tonight, 2 percent of precincts are reporting.

I expected 2008-level turnout. So that statement from the Iowa Democratic Party (that turnout is more like 2016 than 2008) really surprises me. Democrats, by all indications, are really excited about getting Trump out of office. But I will say that I meet of a lot of Democratic voters who are like, “Just pick someone so we can take on Trump.” On the other hand, the theory of the Sanders’s campaign in particular is that he is building a movement that will bring new people into the process. Even if he wins, a lowish-turnout caucus is not ideal for proving that concept.

Folks are talking on TV about how the process is losing credibility with the delay. On the one hand, this is true. But on the other hand — and I’m as tired as the next person — if a delay really damages credibility, that credibility was pretty flimsy to begin with.

Somehow tonight is bringing this XKCD comic to mind …

Lots of waiting for us, and for people still caucusing! Which highlights that the costs of caucusing are prohibitive for lots of people, including parents of young children. The Warren campaign was reported to offer volunteer-led free child care, but I wonder how widespread this option is.

Yeah, Matt, I’m sure Twitter is nutty already with conspiracies.

Welp, our on-the-ground correspondent Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux is done at her precinct site in Iowa City, Johnson County, and as she said, only Warren and Sanders reached the viability threshold there, which isn’t too much of a surprise given its liberal electorate. But meanwhile … we still are waiting for results.

Sarah, one interesting part of that Iowa Democratic Party statement is that turnout is apparently on track to match 2016. That’s not nearly as high as we thought it might be (we thought it might break the record of 240,000 set in 2008). In 2016, Democratic turnout was only about 171,000.

Given the level of conspiracy theorizing associated with the Des Moines Register poll cancelation this weekend, expect a lot of scrutiny around the results as well as the decision to delay reporting of initial results for quality controls.

Well, the question is whether tonight’s caucuses will outdo the 2012 Republican caucuses for the lateness of the declaration of a winner. That year, the Iowa GOP finally said Mitt Romney was the narrow winner after 2 a.m. Eastern. But then a couple weeks later, it turned out that Rick Santorum had actually won.

And … that’s it for this caucus site. Only Warren and Sanders hit viability. Everyone is slowly filtering out of the room. It took almost 3 hours, and the meeting isn’t over yet. The Warren/Sanders camps still have to elect their delegates.

The latest from Iowa Democrats on the lack of results. “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.” — Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure

“Quality control” has entered into the 2020 lexicon.

The defenders of putting Iowa and New Hampshire at the top of the primary calendar argue, among other things, that these smaller states allow voters to personally vet candidates, and so prevent candidates with big war chests from dominating. But who’s to say that states necessarily have to be the key unit in primaries anyway? Imagine, for instance, that we had primaries in select neighborhoods or ZIP codes instead. You could then have the benefits of small jurisdictions while also getting more diverse slices of the electorate.

For readers who might be joining us late: It’s been almost three hours since the caucuses started, and only 33 precincts are reporting first-alignment results, 30 are reporting final-alignment results and zero are reporting state delegate equivalent results (according to the Associated Press).

I will say, Sarah, I did not talk to a single caucusgoer who seemed truly excited about the idea of caucusing. And several told me they hate, hate, hate it. So I don’t know how much love would be lost for the caucuses even in Iowa if they ended.

I’ve seen some speculation online that the delay is due to the smartphone app and, as I mentioned earlier, that could definitely be a factor. However, it’s worth noting this isn’t actually the first time an app was used to collect and tally votes at the Iowa caucuses. In 2016, apps were used by both parties, though a lot of precincts decided to report by phone instead. And there were indeed some technological issues. Some of the results weren’t properly reported via the app and had to be tracked down later in the night.

I mean, given how unrepresentative Iowa is of the country as a whole, I certainly wouldn’t be upset, Sarah.

One can only hope. Caucuses are antiquated and inaccessible.

… So is this the end of the Iowa caucuses? Only strong stances allowed.