Why I think Clinton did not win the Iowa caucuses: The spread between Clinton and Sanders remained at 49.8 to 49.6 percent for soooo long, increased a bit, a few times, but always returned to 49.8 to 49.6, never quite getting to 49.7 to 49.7. And Des Moines was at 83% percent for evvvvver. Until REALLY LATE.
Clinton received 49.8 percent support and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) received 49.6 percent support, according to the Iowa Democratic Party’s website.
— Talking Points Memo, 1:11 p.m.
Okay. I do not think Clinton won the caucuses. I watched the entire count, on my computer, on the New York Times website, which had a map of Iowa, divided into counties. When you moved your cursor over one county, up popped a window showing the current tally and the percentage tallied for that county. I did this, obsessively, until about 97% of the total statewide results were tallied. Then I went to bed.
At that point, it was 49.9 to 49.6, and had been for almost as long as it earlier had been steady at 49.8 to 49.6. Mostly. The spread had increased to 49.9 to 49.5, but then narrowed back to 49.9 to 49.6. That’s what it was when both Clinton and Sanders made their speeches and Clinton said she was breathing a big sigh of relieve and thanked Iowa for her victory. It remained there until about 1 p.m.
I don’t remember what time it was that the tally first showed 49.8 to 49.6, but I think it was about two hours into the counting. It remained at that spread for a long time, which surprised me. Then it bounced around slightly, increasing the spread, then returning to 49.8 to 49.6, but never going to 49.7 to 49.7. Never.
Then suddenly the spread increased to 8/10 of a point. I figured that a large group of precincts from Des Moines had just reported. Which would have made sense, because there had been no movement at all in the percentage of votes tallied in Polk County for what seemed like eons. But, no, Polk County’s tally hadn’t budged. The spread started increasing slightly. Then it dropped back to 49.8 to 49.6. But not to 49.7 to 49.7. Then back up to 49.9 to 49.6. Where it remained until the final tally was announced about midday. The final spread: 49.8 to 49.6.
I’m not the only one who questions the result. The Sanders campaign does, too. They base their suspicions on rumors that in some precincts delegates were assigned based on a coin toss, and (like me) on the interesting timing of tally reporting from certain precincts in certain counties. Or (in my case) at least in one county: Polk.
Clinton, for her part, was her usual graceful and unstilted self about the whole thing. “I am so thrilled that I’m coming to New Hampshire after winning Iowa,” she told a crowd of about 800 at Nashua Community College this afternoon. “I’ve won and I’ve lost there. It’s a lot better to win.” Because of course it’s perfectly natural to say to a crowd of mostly community college students, “I am so thrilled that I’m coming to New Hampshire after winning Iowa.” Chatty Cathy couldn’t have said it better.
And according to CNN’s website:
After an anxious night for both sides, the state Democratic Party declared Clinton the winner just before 1 p.m. Tuesday — and she immediately seized on her moment of triumph.
“I am so thrilled,” Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview minutes later. “My luck was not that good last time around, and it was wonderful to win the caucus, to have that experience.”
She’s convinced me. It’s a thrilling experience to have watched that percentage spread hit 49.8 to 49.6, again and again, and remain at that spread for relatively long periods of time, but never, ever hit that elusive even split of 49.7, even for a moment.
I know how breathtaking that is, because I watched it happen, too.
Big thumb on the scale. 500 “super delegates” already for HRC?
538 commenters were leaning HRC.
Is it really true that Hillary won on 6 out of 6 coin tosses ? That’s beating odds of 1 in 64…….. if her luck is going to go like that , Bernie doesn’t stand a chance.
I feel like Warren wants to endorse Bernie over Clinton , but is holding back so as not to compromise her influence in the future if Clinton wins. Still , I wish she’d just pull the trigger. If Clinton wins , Warren will end up having to fight her on policies every step of the way anyhow , so why not start the fight now by endorsing Bernie.
Does it really make sense to talk about “winning Iowa” in anything other than a PR sense? In a winner-take-all primary, where winning means you get all the delegates, it does. In Iowa, you win a certain number of delegates. “Winning the state” doesn’t change that delegate count. There is no prize for winning the state other than bragging rights.
Similarly, can a candidate really be expected to “concede” a proportional primary. What are they “conceding?” It makes sense to concede an election or a nomination where your concession recognizes that the contest is over and your opponent gets the sole prize. You can “acknowledge” that the other candidate performed better in a proportional primary, but you’re not conceding the primary election – you keep the delegates you won and move on. It makes about as much sense as conceding the first quarter of a football game.
i didnt watch any of it, but when i got up in the morning i googled Iowa and saw this in the Des Moines Register:
Missing precinct scrambles to report Sanders won
which i emailed to a few of my correspondents…heard nothing about it since…
If you also count the party apparatchiks (elected officials) super delegates Clinton certainly won the most delegates regardless of the popular vote.
Thanks Keith for the most prescient spot on comment thus far. But we really should be taking a bit more about election law reforms that would help to standardize the election processes. Thus, making elections more fair and accountable to the American people. Perhaps we should also enact the Citizens United law to make big money contributors more transparent in elections…
Thank you so much, rjs, for posting that link. Partly because it pretty much explains why Polk County’s tally just froze for so many hours at 83%. It looks like it wasn’t deliberate manipulation but instead inadvertent chaos, which makes me feel a lot better.
Of course it raises another question: Why were the results announced although the results weren’t, and aren’t, actually complete? And why did the national news media not report what the Register reported, or even mention it?
As for the coin-flip thing, I read something last night that made me think that wasn’t a factor, because the rules about it are very narrow, and for it to have determined the outcome, even with this narrow a margin, it would have to have occurred in far more than the normal number of precincts. But in light of that Register article, I think that it might very well have happened, erroneously, in some precincts, so the number of precincts involved could be higher than usual.
But whatever the ultimate outcome–and I think it’s safe to say that the tally announced yesterday will not be the final one–Clinton’s handling of it is vintage Hillary Clinton: deeply off-putting, and unnerving in that she doesn’t realize that.
Thank you SO much for that comment, Keith. The link I used for the Clinton quote from her speech at Nashua Community College is to a commentary posted last night by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. The last three paragraphs read:
“A few hours later, at Nashua Community College, the candidate herself felt it safe to declare victory. “I am so thrilled that I’m coming to New Hampshire after winning Iowa,” she told about 800 supporters. “I’ve won and I’ve lost there. It’s a lot better to win.”
“The speech, at 40 minutes, was too long and discursive, but it included the most important point. “Don’t ever forget,” she told the cheering crowd. “Close elections matter. You either win or you lose.”
“That’s how it works, and Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucuses. Let’s cut her some slack.”
But of course that’s not how it works in a proportional caucus system or a proportional primary system. If the results hold up, what Clinton will have won is one or two more delegates than Sanders. Milbank seems to be confusing the caucuses and primaries with the general election.
Clinton’s comments on caucus night and then yesterday just make her look weird and disconnected from normal perception. Which is exactly how she’s looked so much of the time in her campaign, especially in the last month. In my opinion and, it seems clear, in the opinion a lot of other Democrats and Dem leaners.
Yeah, 6 of 6 reported only to learn that it was actually 7 of 13 and only county delegates or such. So…Hillary is doing what one expects these days from all candidates, putting their best spin on it hoping to influence the future.
However, more importantly is what Gaius Publius at Hullabaloo has been focusing on regarding Hillary and her TPP stance. Noting a New York Review of Books article: [D]irect payments to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns, including for the Senate in 2000 and for the presidency in 2008 and now in 2016 … had reached a total of $712.4 million as of September 30, 2015, the most recent figures compiled by Open Secrets. Four of the top five sources of these funds are major banks: Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley….
It does make one think as Publius is asking: does Tom Donohue of the US Chamber know something from Clinton’s recent meetings that we will only learn for real after she is elected? Frankly I think he does and he is clear what it is.
That message being: SUCKERS!
$712 million dollars! Talk about winning the lottery.
If you can’t steal the election, you don’t deserve the office!