@wendy davis The problem for them will be that more people are paying attention than in 2016. I think it's going to be harder to insist people aren't seeing what they are seeing this time around.

"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.”

@snoopydawg

#TomPerezResign: DNC Chair Under Fire for Iowa Disaster, Favoritism for Billionaire Oligarch Bloomberg

Calls for Tom Perez to step down as the head of the Democratic National Committee grew louder Tuesday in the aftermath of the Iowa caucus fiasco in which party mismanagement of the process delayed the results from Monday night's contest and left the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in disarray.

"The Iowa caucus debacle is so insulting to the candidates, their volunteers, the caucus-goers, and the DNC's own process," tweeted HuffPost senior reporter Zach Carter. "Tom Perez has to resign."

Multiple petitions on Change.org called on Perez to relinquish his position as chair of the DNC. One of the most popular ones had over 13,600 signatures at press time. #ResignTomPerez trended on Twitter overnight.

While Perez and the DNC were not technically in charge of the process Monday night, the national party's influence on the process likely led to the caucus meltdown. Top-level party officials' concerns about Russian interference in the 2016 election have created a cottage industry of technology security experts offering protective services for elections.

"I'll be glad to see Tom Perez step down from the DNC," said King. "After a clusterfuck of an election in a state the DNC had a year to prepare for, that was preceded by the DNC changing the rules for a billionaire to buy his way into the race, the man has lost the respect of millions."

"The DNC is corrupt or incompetent or both and if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination it will be in spite of his party's leadership," said Wagner.

Amen. And let us not forget that it was Obama who pushed Perez on to the DNC instead of Ellison. How did he have that power to do that when it was the Clintons who owned the DNC at the time. A final favor for his BFF Hills?

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.)

@snoopydawg I don't see Bloomberg qualifying -- yet. He has only one poll at 10% and, so far, no delegates. Unless DNC changes the rules (again), needs three more polls and/or at least one delegate from somewhere. With the Iowa mess, no one is dropping right now, so that might be harder to achieve than one might think, even with his BS commercials blanketing the airwaves.

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.)

@snoopydawg Last night The Hill pointed out that Bloomberg has tons more money than all but a few of the people who TPTB refer to as "oligarchs", not to mention a major media organization which has been instructed not to report ill of him and he's bought his way into politics. Sounds like an oligarch to me.

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.)

@PriceRip  
what’s to keep one from questioning the next, and the next, and the next . . . ?

“If they were able to fool me and so many others about X, can I believe them about Y . . . or Z . . . ?”

Where will the questioning end? “Orthodox” beliefs about 9/11? The Holocaust? Science? G_d?

Safer and more comfortable for most people’s psyche to not even start.

          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

@PriceRip

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.

And then there's the truth: your vote is meaningless because crooked dicks (Peyronie's disease?) have corrupted the system, but your valid, uncorrupted vote is still vital in the system as it should be.

(A little quantum physics for you this evening!)

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 …

..... doing the work that would entail!!

          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

@ChezJfrey

http://www.clarmond.co.uk/ewExternalFiles/Election%20Special%20-%20The%2...

I recommend it to everyone.

http://www.clarmond.co.uk/ewExternalFiles/Election%20Special%20-%20The%2...

Well it does not take much digging. The Democratic party were using an ‘App’ to count the votes; you cannot make it up but the tech company creating the app is called SHADOW, a name generally given to a Bond villain. To add to this Bondness, SHADOW is owned by another group called ACRONYM, whose CEO is Tara McGowan, Obama’s digital strategist. Gerard Niemira, who worked on Hilary’s 2016 campaign is CEO of SHADOW and finally David Plouffe, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, sits on the board of ACRONYM. Additionally, the Buttigeg and Biden campaigns paid SHADOW for work done. Strange coincidences indeed.This sleuthing took me all of 20 minutes when you asked me to see what the heck happened in the Iowa cornfields. There are two explanations: it is a conspiracy of the Washington Consensus cabal denying Bernie a clean win and essentially muddying the waters...or it is total and utter incompetence of bringing an untested, non-transparent technology into the democratic process.

https://twitter.com/taraemcg/status/1085980913467564033?lang=en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tara_McGowan
https://www.anotheracronym.org/blog/
https://shadowinc.io/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerard-niemira-aaa9b73

I wonder if I'll see the above reported at CNN and MSNBC? LOL

@Shahryar wow, thanks for that callback. I forgot about that little kerfuffle, back when hacked websites and leaked data wasn't a weekly occurrence.

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.

@Shahryar . The Dems have made it abundantly, overwhelmingly clear that they will not, under any circumstances, allow Bernie to win the nomination. Period. And therefore, odds are immense that it's not going to happen. And as most of us know here, it is not trivial if Bernie loses this time. The 20 strongest, shiniest, best-spoken, best-educated corporate Dems are no substitute for a genuine democratic populist. There is no comparison. Those who hedge with, "Well, gee, maybe Liz..." are throwing their votes, along with their minds, into the trash. The opposition (the oligarchy, establishment, deep state, etc. in all its guises) is absolute in its intentions toward the underclass (the 99%). They are dead set on keeping the reins of power to themselves, which means keeping us powerless.

If people could get that through their heads, then maybe we can awaken that do-or-die within ourselves and render the current Democratic Party null and void. At this point, Bernie could run on his own or he could run in open defiance of the criminal party that is hell-bent on stopping him. Either way, he would have a ton of support. Caitlin Johnstone was correct that what the oligarchy fears most is US, the people.

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.

@wendy davis

small wonder, then, that buttplug's leading as per the partial results released!

from RT.com:

'Buttigieg leading, Sanders close 2nd in US Democratic Party's Iowa caucuses based on partial results

The Iowa Democratic Party released the tally from 62 percent of the precincts in all of the state’s 99 counties on Tuesday afternoon, almost an entire day after the caucuses ended. The South Bend, Indiana mayor had already declared victory in the media, while the Vermont senator’s campaign said it had data showing otherwise.

The process was marred by chaos and confusion at multiple caucus sites, as well as frustration online after party officials unexpectedly delayed the reporting of results and had released only a portion of them by Tuesday evening.

The delay was originally blamed on a “coding error” that forced an “investigation,” as well as requiring votes to be counted by hand. However, the Iowa Democratic Party chair said the results tabulated through a controversial app were “accurate".

Though Buttigieg is leading at the moment, there are still votes to be counted and there is not yet a timetable for when they will be released. The Iowa Democratic Party, however, claims they have released a "majority" of the final tallies.

The claim to the number one spot comes at a price. Pete Buttigieg controversially declared himself “victorious” in the absence of results, and did the Tuesday morning show rounds. He later doubled down on the claim at a New Hampshire rally. Bernie Sanders' campaign released their own data and showed Sanders with a heavy lead on his opponents before the official vote totals were released. The campaign said their own information was gathered from "precinct captains around the state."

whatever all that word salad means.

"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.

@ludwig ii When I first read it was the app that went bad my own reaction was, well duh. When we depend on some damned app to do everything for us what in hell can we expect? I'm not blaming voters here, not really, but when I hear people whining about FB and all the rest mining their data and invading privacy while they use it daily, I just shake my head and think, well, what DID you expect?

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.