Iowa
It appears I went to bed just a little too early. The Clintonista New York Times had already reported discrepancies in the Iowa count.[1]
They’ve found more, enough, potentially, to tip the race in state delegate equivalents from Pete Buttigieg to Bernie Sanders. It appears the applicable rule is poorly worded and ambiguous. “[W]ith so many other irregularities in the results, one wonders whether the Iowa caucuses will have a definitive winner at all.”[2]
The Times is still not alleging intentional bias. The trouble lies in the preponderance of these irregularities and the simple fact that this shouldn’t be nearly so hard as the Democrats have made it.
One of the other things I remember from my programming days is the acronym KISS: “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” Failing that simple edict, the Democrats invite suspicion. And my Twitter feed is full of just that.
Nate Cohn, “New Doubts From Iowa Caucuses: How ‘Satellite’ Votes Are Being Measured,” New York Times, February 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucus-satellite-votes.html
- [1]Nate Cohn et al., “Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies,” New York Times, February 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html↩
- [2]Nate Cohn, “New Doubts From Iowa Caucuses: How ‘Satellite’ Votes Are Being Measured,” New York Times, February 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucus-satellite-votes.html↩