Hillary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg tag-team to muck-up Iowa caucus

In what is being described as a “disaster,” as of this moment there is still no results posted from Iowa’s three-pronged circus of a caucus. Instead of "looking forward" to Donald Trump's 20 lies, falsehoods and fabrications a minute State of the Union address,  we have to mull over the meaning of The Des Moines Register  report that the problem—due to a glitch in the software used to tabulate the results—can be traced to a smartphone app developed by a company called Shadow Inc., founded by associates of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign; it is suspected that Clinton’s DNC moles used their “muscle” to force the app on the Iowa Democrats. It isn’t “shocking” that somehow Hillary would be involved to muck things up; her win in the Iowa caucus back in 2016 was so razor thin that it was literally decided on six “coin flips” that just by sheer “luck” came down in her favor. Maybe it wasn’t the same 31-trillion-to-one odds of converting a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 profit in just ten months, but one suspects that something more than “luck” had something to do with it. Perhaps to avoid such unexpected scenarios from recurring, this “app” was designed to create “chaos” in the event of undesired results. After this debacle, the Nevada Democratic establishment smartly announced that it will not use this same “system” as had been intended in their own caucus.

But that wasn’t the only problem.  Pete Buttigieg is claiming “victory” based on “reports” from his supporters. Supporters for Bernie Sanders are claiming that some dirty dealing by Buttigieg supporters occurred at some caucus locations, like defacing Sanders signs to confuse caucus voters, and acting like hooligans at a British soccer game when supporters of other candidates—Sanders’ in particular—tried to speak. In response to accusations by rivals that his supporters might try to “game” the results, Sanders had instructed his voters to leave precinct locations after they had cast their votes; but some are reporting that they suspect that vote-rigging was occurring after they left. It isn’t surprising that Buttigieg would be resorting to such tactics, if these reports are true; despite the fact that he touts his “gay” credentials, blacks in South Bend, Indiana where he is the mayor would say that this doesn’t mean being a white gay or lesbian (especially) prohibits accusations of racism; I lived in Seattle’s Capitol Hill district for 8 years, and I know some people think it is their “right” as “victims” to make known their own negative stereotypes about race and “ethnicity.” 

Buttigieg seems to realize that he has little credibility with black voters, so he has taken to using the term “American Heartland” in his campaign, which many view as a racial “dog whistle” to attract white voters. It is true that Democrats need to woo some rural and working class white voters away from Trump, but the way they do it does matter. I would certainly put more stock in Sanders’ long record of support for working class people than in Buttigieg’s opportunism—or Joe Biden’s “moderate” cowardice, or Elizabeth Warren’s Pandora’s Box of “stories” just waiting to be kicked open completely and be told over and over again by Trump and his “dark money” support.

So why have the caucus system at all? Polling in states like Iowa tend not to reflect what actually occurs in caucuses, and it is a mystery why caucus states just don’t abandon the practice altogether, and simply rely on a single, “regular” election vote. The irregularity of the caucus system was partially seen in the Washington state caucus, which Sanders won handily; but two months later the state still held a primary election that was not technically “binding,” and Hillary Clinton won by a 2-1 margin. I use the term “partially” because by that time Clinton was far ahead in the delegate count (thanks to the superdelegate vote), and those who bothered to vote at all were Clinton bandwagon jumpers. 

In any case, no matter who eventually “wins” the Iowa caucus, the results will be tainted and its “meaning” should be discarded. New Hampshire is next, and there at least we will have a better grip on who has the “momentum”—something that will be better understood once the Deep South primaries come into play.