"This must surely be one of the most unedifying spectacles of modern times...", i'd say it's very edifying:

edifying: providing moral or intellectual instruction.

patrick martin, wsws.org

“The media and non-Sanders Democratic Party candidates quickly developed a common line, citing supposed “quality control” issues in the vote that questioned its “legitimacy.” The New York Times, which earlier posted polling results that clearly showed Sanders in the lead, removed all such figures from its front page by midnight.”

The Death of Iowa
and
'It’s a total meltdown': Confusion grips Iowa with no official results in sight

Iowa wouldn't have died, if the Democratic Party hadn't poisoned Iowa, if I may say so.

PEREZ should resign.

PELOSI should resign leadership.

SCHUMER should resign leadership.

From #Kavanaugh to #Iowa to #impeachment-lite to refusing to #CancelSOTU, the Democratic Party is FAILING.

Businesses, sports teams... change leadership when necessary.

It's time.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) February 4, 2020

On one level, this is an illustration of America’s descent into banana republic status. Pundits and the media keep reinforcing American exceptionalist fantasies, our brand fumes of vaunted democracy, yet we can’t even run elections competently. Is is just the grifting, that introducing more tech creates more opportunities for vendor enrichment? Or is it yet more proof that a lot of people in charge really hate democracy and are at best indifferent to doing things right?

It’s not hard to see the Iowa fiasco as an illustration of an even more deeply-seated pathology: elite incompetence. Too many people with the right resumes get to fail upwards or at worst sideways. And remember, unlike our older WASP-y leaders who were a combination of people from the right clubs and self-made men, our current crop of people in charge pride themselves on being the end products of a meritocratic system, as in their claim to legitimacy stems from the claim that they are more talented (gah) than mere mortals and therefore obviously should be in the top slots because they’ll do oh so much better than everyone else.

Bingo. And don't forget folks that Bloomberg is not an oligarch and it was quite okay for him to donate $300,000 plus to the DNC and then they changed the rules so that he could get on the debate while they wouldn't for Harris, Booker, Tulsi or Yang. But of course being an oligarch (I know) doesn't mean he is a bad one like the Koch brothers and the other oligarch who are republicans even though Bloomberg was one not that long ago. Democratic Oligarchs are just A OK. Make sense of this if you can. I can't. Nina Turner is right. Bloomberg is an oligarch (as in rich f'cker who bought his way into the campaign but that's okay for orange reasons.)

          I was never really a democrat or Democrat (if you prefer). I officially started being politically active in the fall 1969 as I turned 21, the age of majority in those days, and to this day have been a pain in the backside for all politically savvy individuals I have known.

          No one likes a smart-ass at the party. I really don't get along with those that don't get that in Reality (think Red pill) my vote is meaningless, while in reality (think Blue pill) my vote is vital. When you stop thinking superficially (that is the way most people function) and start thinking substantively you can easily see how to solve social problems and begin to fix those constructed problems.

          But on the other hand, it is so much more fun to shout slogans, epithets, et cetera rather than actually …

RIP

We're just seeing the final death coughs here. There's going to be plenty more on the way to November. When "vote blue, no matter who" changes to Party Unity, My Ass*, then the Dems will be heading to history's dustbin.

* and I am all for re-purposing the 2008 Clinton supporter's P.U.M.A. identifier, if for no other reason than the delicious irony of the same people telling us we need unity now, etc.

Just groan

Remember, Ana is a Republican.

She is pushing a candidate who aligns with her Repbulican values.

— Metta Force (@SallySamsara) February 4, 2020

That's it I am out of here and going out to play in the sun and the snow.

in other words I'm comfortable with the idea that this is deliberate, along with the non-reporting of the Des Moines poll.

If it's not clear on that Lamont reference, Lieberman lost the primary and then claimed Lamont had hacked his site, which was a lie, but it gave the media something to talk about other than Lamont's win.

This emphasis today on the "app", along with that non-poll, is just too suspicious a smokescreen. It could be true. It could be that incompetent people created a worthless app. But I....I just can't shake the feeling that it's phony.

"Find out, as I know you can, who made what decisions, who issued what orders to what state party officials, and publish the results."

but i will offer that it's morally instructional that patrick martin (an actual factual SEP socialist had written:

The manipulation of the results in Iowa is clearly directed from the top. The Democratic National Committee sent dozens of top operatives, including software and cybersecurity experts, into Iowa in the weeks before the caucuses. Even before Monday, there were efforts to develop the line that the vote might not be legitimate.

In fact, the software application used to report the results from precinct caucuses—three sets of numbers for less than a dozen candidates—would not have been very complex, and there was ample time for testing and security measures.

The weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses featured a coordinated campaign by the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment to undermine Sanders’ support. This campaign was widely viewed as unsuccessful or even counterproductive—boosting support for the self-described “democratic socialist” rather than reducing it."

oh, bother; my apologies, i'd thought he'd also featured this that i found anew [video:https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/buttigieg-campaign-paid-firm-tha... perhaps it was in his previous column:

Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's campaign contributed money to the technological firm whose voting app contributed to reporting delays in the Iowa caucuses.

Federal Election Commission filings reveal that Buttigieg's campaign gave tens of thousands of dollars to Shadow on July 23, 2019, for "software rights and subscriptions."

Shadow, a technology company that has an investor in the Democratic digital nonprofit organization ACRONYM, was also paid $60,000 over two installments by the Iowa Democratic Party to build an app to help make caucus voting easier and faster for precinct volunteers. Filings also reveal that the Nevada Democratic Party paid Shadow $58,000 for "website development."

as for the caucus system, i used to like the CO versions as close to 'neighborhood meetings', but i will say that they are inherently unfair to the working poor rabble class, most especially those with chirren.

A bunch of no-doubt 'disruptive' 'innovators,' backed and funded by the same Very Important establishment hacks, forcing needless and easily-exploited technology onto people and cashing in on the process. When, due to either corruption or malice, the whole thing blows up, blame those corn-fed Iowan rubes and their lily-white caucus, rinse and repeat.

Wonder what the overlap is between ACRONYM™ SHADOW™ investors and Theranos investors.

Hillary got her majority because she won big in NY, CA, and MA. In the remaining 47 states, Trump won by a margin of four million.

What the BS in Iowa will do is reduce turnout.

But in the end, the moneyed elites of the democratic party will survive with enough tribal loyalty to win some seats.