Not...they were jamming phones just to mess with our party and had nothing to do with the vote

nt

nobody does because of the chaos. And who knows if the numbers were all called in, as they are not doing a re-canvassing

the longer it takes for a clear winner to emerge and consolidate support, the better for republicans.

What they did didn't affect the numbers, just the delivery.

I live in Iowa and was at the caucus.

There was no phone jamming before or during the caucus.
Votes were recorded on essentially paper ballots before any calls were attempted.

what do you think was the point of that interference? And were you one of the people in charge of delivering/calling in results?

completed before any calls were attempted.

Whether the caucus results were delivered via phone app, phone call or delivery of ballots to party HQ, they were not going to change and magically become Buttigieg votes because of some jamming calls.

Whether the results were delivered that night or a week later the results were not going to change..

No I wasn't in charge of delivering the results, but a close friend was. The results were published online at the Iowa Democratic website and were exactly as I remember as they were announced several times.

They were not messing with the vote... it was with the party to try and make us look bad..The results are what they are.. they did not change. No one can send in votes till the caucus is over..

Even in previous years the system was pretty solid, but the addition of preference choice cards made it nearly unbreakable.

And I was the precinct chair in the 4 previous caucuses so I am pretty familiar with how the system is supposed to work.

There was too much chaos, which was the intention.

that served as a paper backup. My understanding is that the paper backup pretty much agreed with the eventually phoned in results.

So once again, how could the Republican phone jamming have changed any results?

One thing that is disconcerting is that because of the delegate assignment system, Buttigieg got fewer votes yet got more delegates than Sanders.

For instance, my precinct had 92 caucusers. A good friend in a nearby town had 276 in his caucus. Yet because of the delegate assignment system we had seven delegates, his precinct got 6. Stinks like the electoral college.

Pete is surging in the polls suddenly so it could be a repeat. We won't get into the caucus system because I am not a fan. However, I would suggest that no one dismiss the way the Cons are planning to mess with the Dem selection. There's talk they will mess with SC, with the RNC blessing, so Dems need to be alert.

In my years as chair I welcomed more than one suddenly converted Repug into our midsts. I know there were repugs in our caucus last Monday. Oddly they were for Pete. I had even been invited for a morning coffee by the group a couple of months ago for a conversion.

Republicans mess with our elections all the time, no matter what form they take. Since the Repugs have no primary in NH or SC, don't you think a lot will reregister as Dems and vote in their primaries? Pretty standard practice.

Democrats desire to be open and accepting gives the repugs the opening they need for sabotage.

but we are dealing with an entirely different party now. They will do anything to win because they don't have the numbers to do so at the ballot box. This is not our parent's republican party. And of course they are going to do that in SC. They've been open about that and we are not talking conversions here.

gerrymandering and other tricks have been put in for since Reagan. They can't win legitimately, so they cheat, cheat, cheat.

one that Republicans wanted to win?

Who did the Republicans want to win do you think?

My thoughts are that Pete Buttigieg, with only experience as a small city mayor, is probably be our weakest candidate by far. I also thought the gay issue was not a huge factor in the caucuses, but was told by someone deep in the party that Pete's sexuality was a major factor in Iowa. It will be in the general also.

I will vote for whoever is blue, but I personally think Buttigieg os our weakest candidate and would be an odds on choice as the candidate Repugs would promote.

He was never really vetted in '16 and there's a huge amount of oppo on him ready to be dropped. It's already beginning to drip out. The label socialist attached to his honeymoon in Moscow was part of the discussion between Hannity & Lump. I don't think Pete bothers them at all, they discount him because he's gay.

"socialist" and probably "communist." this has been a tactic which has been employed as long as I have been alive.

And no matter who is nominated there will be questions on their religion, their service if they served so on and so forth and make up scandals out of thin air. Republican campaigns haven't changed a lot since 1960. They have always been dirty. Now they are much dirtier and much more focused, using tools like Facebook and twitter.

So strap yourself in. You are about to hear some of the biggest most insane lies ever. Nearly half of America will swallow them all and our corporate media will repeat them ad infinitum, never bothering to fact check. The media needs a close race to sell ad time, so they will do their part to keep to close. And the boardrooms want a Republican victory so they can be fairly unregulated and take over the big prize - the internet.

The playing field will be about as level as the Matterhorn.

to any one but BS. EW has already made it pretty clear she is a capitalist and the others simply don't apply.

As for corporations, I'm betting they'll want Bloomberg. No one is as bad as the lump so it will be any blue candidate but they are not equal.

candidate in probably the last 40 years. There are a certain percent that are the religiously faithful and then those who will question - a total of enough to put the election in doubt.

Dukakis, Clinton, Gore , Kerry, Obama (Obama was everything in the book) were all labeled "socialists."

It has always amazed me that labeling the right "fascists" - which they are - has little effect while labeling the left "socialists" makes half of America wet their beds.

We fought a huge war against fascists.

The point being that there need be no logical connection to reality for the right to level charges. The "swift boating" of John Kerry - including the bandaid 'Purple Hearts' were probably the worst of the worst.

Strap yourself in - they have endless money, no heart and no fear of saying anything since the media will cover for them.

BS' writings and actions make him plum for that role.

They often think their prejudices, like homophobia, are generally popular. I don't they could even begin to conceive of a gay president. What they don't see in Pete, is what many do and that is he has an open, honest face which is very appealing to many.

I agree he isn't our weakest candidate, I think Bernie is.