The Fix is In: With Sanders Headed to Victory, Iowa Democratic Party Blocks Release of Caucus Results

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.

An official statement from the Iowa Democratic Party claimed that there were “inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results” from each of the more than 1,700 precinct caucuses held across the state. The party statement did not explain the nature of the discrepancies or how they were to be remedied, except to claim that the issue was not the result of a hack or other external interference with the tabulation of the vote.

Lawyers for the campaign of former Vice President Joe Biden sent a letter to the Iowa Democratic Party Monday night demanding an accounting of the method being used for “quality control” in the vote tabulation before any results are released. This could keep the results of the caucus voting secret for days, if not weeks, while courtroom battles are played out, in a manner reminiscent of the 2000 vote in Florida.

Precincts covered by the major media Monday night reported that Biden suffered a debacle, often not even receiving enough support to pass into the second round of voting.

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.

The failure to report results from the caucus raises new questions about Saturday’s decision to cancel the release of the final Iowa Poll by the Des Moines Register, allegedly because of a complaint by the Buttigieg campaign that at least one telephone survey worker did not include the name of their candidate. The poll was expected to confirm Sanders’ standing as the leading candidate, only two days before the caucuses.

All the major Democratic candidates made speeches Monday night thanking their supporters and pledging to continue their campaigns in the New Hampshire primary February 11. Significantly, however, Buttigieg was the only one to claim he had been “victorious” in the caucuses, an assertion that had no basis in any figures reported from the state, since there were none.

Data from entrance polls reported on cable television suggested that Sanders was in the lead with at least 23 percent, followed by Buttigieg, Warren and Biden, in fourth place with about 16 percent. Demographic information on caucus-goers also suggested such an order of finish, with the proportion of voters under 30 jumping from 18 percent in 2016, when Sanders and Hillary Clinton finished in a virtual tie, to 24 percent in 2020.

The proportion of voters over 65 years of age—the base of the Biden campaign—fell from 34 percent in 2016 to only 28 percent in 2020.

The debacle and orchestrated operation over the Iowa caucuses is only a foretaste of what is to come in the efforts by the Democratic Party to rig the primary election process.

Addressing supporters Monday night, Sanders slammed Trump, saying “we cannot continue to have a president who is a pathological liar, who is corrupt, who does not understand our constitution, and is trying to divide our people based on the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, or where they were born.”

Iowa caucus results were supposed to be released Monday night.

Instead they were delayed, Politico headlining: “ ‘It’s a total meltdown:’ Confusion seizes Iowa as officials struggle to report results.”

“The Iowa caucus results appear to be indefinitely delayed, leaving (Dem) candidates in a lurch.”

Is the problem “technical,” as reported, or something more unseemly?

Are results being manipulated before release to favor party favorites over others, notably Sanders. Polls showed him favored over other Dems.

In 2016, WikiLeaks revelations of thousands of DNC emails showed party support for Hillary, plotting against Sanders, rigging things to make her party nominee.

The process was like holding a world series or super bowl with only one team contesting.

Sanders never had a chance in the race to become Dem presidential nominee in 2016 — DNC/media collusion and other dirty tricks used against him.

Party bosses chose Hillary, primaries rigged to assure her nomination. Will a similar pattern play out this year?

The US money-controlled political process has been rife with fraud and other dirty tricks for time immemorial.

Despite losing to Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, GW Bush served two terms as president — electronic ease and majority Supreme Court justices elevating him to power.

Numerous other examples of a debauched system date from early in the 19th century, modern-day technology enabling things to turn out the way party bosses and deep-pocketed funders wish.

In its Tuesday edition, the Wall Street Journal published Iowa Caucus results from 33 of 1,765 districts, showing Sanders with 27.7% of the vote, Biden with 11.1%.

The Sanders campaign released its own tally from 40% of reporting precincts, showing him ahead of other Dem aspirants with 28% support to Buttigieg’s 21%, Warren’s 19%, and Biden with 14%.

A final count of districts tabulated had Sanders getting 30% support, Buttigieg 25%, Warren 21%, Biden 12%, and Klobucher 11%.

Biden’s poor showing could eliminate him from contention if New Hampshire results next Tuesday are similar.

What caused what Politico called a “technical meltdown in Iowa…a huge black eye” to the state, “set(ting) off bedlam in the” first race for the White House contest?

The NYT blamed it on a “poorly tested…app,” citing anonymous sources.

A Washington Post report was similar, saying “caucuses were in a state of suspended confusion — with precincts unable to communicate results.”

Dems “began their high-stakes nominating contest Monday under a cloud of uncertainty and dysfunction.”

Dem Pottawattamie County chairwoman Linda Nelson couldn’t get her mobile app to work. WaPo quoted her posting “HELP” on Facebook.

Noting the “election debacle,” the Wall Street Journal said there were “inconsistencies in the reporting.”

The Trump campaign called the technical snafu or whatever delayed release of results Monday night as expected “the sloppiest train wreck in history.”

Donald Trump Jr mocked what happened, tweeting: “Tomorrow’s plot twist ‘Hillary Clinton is reported the winner of the Iowa caucus.’ ”

DJT tweeted: “Big WIN for us in Iowa tonight.”

According to Iowa Dem party communications director Mandy McClure:

“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results.”

“In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.”

Results are expected Tuesday, greatly diminished by headlined reports of a Monday “technical meltdown.”

Whatever the reported outcome, the New Hampshire primary is days away next Tuesday.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Unz Review