• Why Pete Buttigieg Is Talking About the Deficit in New Hampshire

    Pete Buttigieg

    Mary Altaffer / Associated Press

    On Saturday at a town hall in Keene, New Hampshire, Rep. Annie Kuster* pulled a question out of a fishbowl and began to read it aloud to Pete Buttigieg. “Alright, Pete, a classic New Hampshire question,” she said, adding that it was “important to all of us even if Washington have stopped paying attention.”

    The attendee wanted to know Buttigieg’s thoughts on “the deficit.”

    “I think the time has come for my party to get a lot more comfortable talking about the deficit,” Buttigieg said. “Because right now we got a president who comes from a party that used to talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, with a trillion-dollar deficit, and no plan in sight for what to do about it.”

    “And yes,” he continued, “this should concern progressives, who are not in the habit of talking or worrying too much about the debt.” Buttigieg argued that the growing deficit would “start crowding out investment in safety net and health and infrastructure and education programs,” make it harder to fund economic stimulus programs should the economy demand it, and—in a talking point that might sound familiar to people who remember what life was like in 2011—hurt young people who “might be here when some of these fiscal time bombs start to go off.”

    It was a little surprising—in my time on the campaign trail this year, I really haven’t heard a lot about the deficit, an object of Republican fixation during the Obama presidency that was used as justification for several debt-ceiling showdowns but which seems to have largely faded from view during the Trump administration. Maybe Buttigieg was speaking off the cuff and we shouldn’t read too much into it. But then, again, at a town hall on Sunday in Nashua, Buttigieg very conveniently received almost the exact same question out of the fishbowl.

    “How important is the deficit to you?”

    Buttigieg’s eyes lit up as he answered. “Important—that’s the short answer,” he said. “And I think the time has come for my party to get a lot more comfortable owning this issue. Because we’ve seen what’s happened with this president—a trillion dollar deficit, and his allies in Congress do not care. So we’ve got to do something about it!”

    “It’s not fashionable in progressive circles, I think, to talk too much about the debt,” he acknowledged. But Buttigieg was there to offer some hard truths.

    The idea that progressives don’t really care about this issue is an odd one, considering just how much of an emphasis the Obama administration placed on reducing the deficit (Obamacare reduced it!), and how much time it spent trying to broker a “grand bargain” to reform Social Security and Medicare. Democrats spent much of those eight years talking a lot about deficits, in part because Republicans spent much of that time pretending that Democrats weren’t. Then- and current-speaker Nancy Pelosi implemented pay-as-you-go rules mandating that bills in the House be paid for, and Pelosi has already signaled that PAYGO will be back in a Democratic administration. For the last few decades, Democrats have been the fiscal hawks.

    But New Hampshire’s open primary does allow for a surge of moderate and conservative independents on Election Day, and Buttigieg—who nods to the prevalence of “future former Republicans” at his rally—perhaps thinks he stands to benefit from a little bit of lefty-bashing, real or imagined.

    *Correction: This story originally misstated Rep. Annie Kuster’s current job title.

  • The 2020 Candidates Got Together to Discuss One of Their Biggest Threats. No, Not Donald Trump.

    J. Scott Applewhite/AP

    The name that loomed over Saturday’s “Our Rights, Our Courts” candidate forum in Concord, New Hampshire was not Donald Trump. It was Mitch McConnell.

    The wily Republican Senate leader has bedeviled the Democrats for years. He denied Barack Obama a Supreme Court Justice, then helped to deliver Trump two. He invoked the “nuclear option” to push through the president’s executive branch nominees and pack the federal courts with ideologues, including a number deemed unqualified for the bench by the American Bar Association. Most recently, he secured the president’s impeachment acquittal in the Senate by, in part, ensuring the proceedings were free of new testimony. 

    “As president, how would you deal with Mitch McConnell?” That question, or variations of it, was asked repeatedly of the candidates at the “Our Rights” forum—sponsored by a quartet of progressive groups, including Demand Justice, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and NARAL. Most offered a similar—if somewhat facile—reply: The six-term Kentucky senator must be dethroned in his upcoming reelection race or, with his Republican colleagues, demoted to the minority.

    This, of course, is much easier said than done.

    “Mitch McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said. “We need to to put McConnell out of a job.”

    “I will not concede that Mitch McConnell will be the leader,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said,  pointing to the Kentucky senator’s Democratic opponent, Amy McGrath, a former fighter pilot who in 2018 mounted an unsuccessful House bid. “Two Amys are better than one!”

    “The only way this will change is if we engage the American people to ensure there is a political consequence,” said former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, when asked how he’d deal with McConnell and his GOP Senate. Translation: vote McConnell out or seize a Senate majority. “If we can’t change Congress, we’re screwed,” he added.

    For the Democrats, reclaiming the Senate is an uphill climb. McConnell, for his part, ranks among the most unpopular senators in America. (Kentucky also had the dubious honor of having one of the nation’s least popular governors, Matt Bevin, who lost his reelection bid in November.) While potentially vulnerable, McConnell is still much more likely than not to retain his seat. That means if the Democratic nominee succeeds in ousting Trump, he or she may still have McConnell and his Senate majority to contend with.

    In other words, they’re kinda screwed. 

    Sen. Bernie Sanders said McConnell—and Trump—deserved some credit for their success in pushing the judiciary to the right. “They were well organized; they knew what they were doing. As a member of the Senate, I can tell you, you know what we do every day? We vote for right-wing, extremist judges.” He also noted that Democrats should study the Republican playbook: “We can learn some lessons from what the right-wing is doing in this country.”

    The forum’s moderators—MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle and HuffPost‘s Jennifer Bendery—pressed Tom Steyer on how he would navigate McConnell and a Republican-controlled Senate. He first said that he didn’t accept the assumption that the Republicans would retain control of the Senate next year. Finally, noting that Obama had repeatedly tried to compromise with McConnell only to be obstructed, he responded: “I would assume from day one that this was a fight. Mitch McConnell has not one time put the country ahead of his party. Not one time.” He added, “Why does everyone ask Democrats how we’re going to meet in the middle and how we’re going to compromise? Why does no one ever call up Mitch McConnell and say, ‘Hey Mitch, when are you going to compromise?’ This is what we do. Democrats keep thinking the Republicans are like us. They’re not. I don’t want to be like them. They’re not like us.”

  • The Democrats Hug It Out

    Elise Amendola/AP

    A day after the four-year anniversary of Marco Rubio’s decapitation at the hands of Chris Christie, the Democrats have shown that they are not afraid to hug it out. The stakes are high for a few candidates on the debate stage. Elizabeth Warren needs to take out Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden needs to take out Pete Buttigieg. Amy Klobuchar needs to take out Biden and Buttigieg. Tom Steyer needs to take out everybody.

    But after a few early digs, the Democratic candidates are upholding their reputation for bringing tote bags to a knife fight.

    The debate opened with Bernie Sanders declaring unity.

    At the end of the day…everybody up here is united,” said Sanders. “No matter who wins this damn thing, we’re all going to stand together to defeat Donald Trump.”

    Amy Klobuchar kept the love going, saying, “I like Bernie just fine,” before listing bills they had successfully worked on together in the Senate.

    But the highlight so far was definitely the Biden-Bernie hug that happened about 45 minutes in. 

    Biden Bernie hugging gif

    It should be noted, this wasn’t the first Biden-Bernie hug to happen on a debate stage this cycle. They also embraced onstage in October in Ohio.

    Biden, Bernie hug in October 2019
    John Minchillo/AP
  • Did Tom Steyer Just Make a Good Point?

    Charles Krupa/AP

    Billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer—who is currently polling at 2 percent nationally—just delivered what may turn out to be the best line of Friday night’s Democratic presidential debate.

    As the other candidates squabbled over health care, Steyer refocused the conversation by quoting the infamous phrase from Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign: “It’s the economy, stupid,” getting to the heart of the challenge of defeating an incumbent. 

    “We’re gonna have to take Mr. Trump down on the economy, because if you listen to him, he’s crowing about it every single day,” Steyer said, “and he’s gonna beat us unless we can take him down on the economy, stupid.”

    The problem, Steyer seemed to suggest, was not Democrats’ policies so much as their overall messaging.

    “I have heard this debate so many darn times, and I love all these people, and they’re all right,” he said. “If we win, we can get the right thing, Bernie. I am with you. If we win, we can get the right thing, Pete and Amy. But we gotta win, or we are in deep trouble, and we keep not talking about the facts.”

  • Trump Voters Have Found a Democrat They Can Get Behind in New Hampshire

    Tulsi Gabbard

    Kristopher Radder / Associated Press

    About a half-hour before Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s town hall here on Thursday, a guest at the Fireside Inn & Suites in West Lebanon, New Hampshire, ducked into the conference room to inquire about all the signs. When a volunteer filled him in, he sounded skeptical. “She’s running for…president?”

    Yes, and to hear some of the folks here tell it, she might even win.

    Gabbard’s long-shot campaign has yet to take off nationally, and there are a lot of reasons for that—there’s her strange family…cult?; her public feud with Hillary Clinton; her failure to qualify for the last three debates; and the obvious fact that Bernie Sanders, who she backed in 2016, is still here and now may be the frontrunner. But Gabbard is holding down about 5 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, according to the Suffolk University tracking poll. That’s potential spoiler territory, with the first-in-the-nation primary just days away.

    So where’s all that support coming from? If the crowd at the hotel was any indication, it’s a whole lot of Republicans and independents who supported President Donald Trump four years ago.

    “She has a lot of class, but she’s sort of the Democratic Trump,” said Anthony Stevens of Vermont, who was there with his fiancee, a Democrat who was still undecided. Stevens meant it as a good thing—after all, he’d voted for the president four years ago. This time around he was looking for someone different (Trump does not have a lot of class). He liked Gabbard’s anti-war stance and was drawn, again, to a candidate who had clashed with her own party.

    “She’s got to feel like Rudolph—they won’t let her play in the games,” Stevens said, alluding to her exclusion from the most recent debates. (Gabbard has failed to meet the qualifying threshold for Friday’s debate at the University of New Hampshire.)

    A few seats over sat Bob Gill, a former Marine who is now a horse farmer in New Hampshire. He had also voted for Trump. Gill was still undecided, but liked Gabbard because he thought she might be the kind of voice who could maybe bring people back together. Plus, “I like that she’s looking to save some money on the wars and everything,” he said. But he had no patience for the rest of the field, particularly the septuagenarians topping the polls in some of the Super Tuesday states. “I’d put them out to pasture,” he said. 

    Sitting in the back, Lisa Buck-Rogers, an Air Force veteran and New Hampshire voter, told me she also supported Trump, but would most likely vote against him this fall. Gabbard’s criticism of American military actions struck a chord with her. “I like how she feels about respecting our veterans and making sure their lives are spent accordingly.” She likes some of what Sanders says, too, particularly on health care, but she’s “’Gabby’ as long as I can.”

    Ask a voter what they like about, say, Pete Buttigieg or Elizabeth Warren, and you might get a range of answers. But the responses I got about Gabbard were unusually consistent—what Scott Decker, a supporter from Burlington, Vermont summed up as “anti-imperialism.” Other candidates oppose foreign intervention to varying degrees, but it dominates Gabbard’s message, so much so that to these supporters, it supersedes the kinds of policies (like single-payer health care) they might consider a deal-breaker in the eyes of someone else.

    Ken Rafferty, an independent from Lebanon, New Hampshire, voted for former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in the Republican primary in 2016, but he didn’t vote in the general election that year. “I’m glad I didn’t, because I never would have voted for either one of those guys,” he said, referring to Trump and Clinton, though, “in retrospect, I’m kind of concerned about Trump.” Rafferty disagreed with much of what Gabbard was pushing, particularly when it came to health care. But because of her criticism of American military action in the Middle East, and of her own party, Gabbard was the only Democrat he’d even consider supporting.

    Independents can vote in whichever primary they choose in New Hampshire, and Gabbard is leaning into her support from unaffiliated voters. At the town hall on Thursday, she asked, as she often does, for a show of hands from the Democrats in the room. There were maybe six of them, in a crowd of about 40. Another half dozen were Republicans, the rest independents. (Though unfortunately for Gabbard, many of these independents were from neighboring Vermont.) A few people in the audience applauded at the results.

    For these Republicans and independents, it helps that Gabbard sometimes seems to have as much of a beef with the Democratic Party establishment as they do.

    “Anybody who is banned from the mainstream media and who gets shit from Hillary Clinton is my kind of person,” said Decker, a Burlington, Vermont, resident who said who would also support Sanders in the general election “if he gets there.”

    “Gabbard knew right away that the DNC was fixed,” Buck-Rogers said, referring to Gabbard’s decision to step down from her post as Democratic National Committee vice-chair in 2016.

    Still, while Gabbard is happy to go on Fox News, engage Trump voters, and feud with her party, there’s still one line she won’t cross. During the Q&A that followed her stump speech, she took a question from a man in a Tulsi T-shirt, named Paul Woodman, who was sitting next to a man wearing a “Fuck Trump” pin. “I voted against Hillary, which means I voted for Trump,” Woodman told her. He just might do it again, if Democrats don’t nominate the congresswoman standing in front of him. Gabbard was the only Democrat he could stomach, and he was convinced she wasn’t going to get a fair shake from the DNC, even if she ended up with enough delegates to compete for the nomination. “Have you ever considered…changing parties or re-affiliating?,” he asked.

    She smiled, thanked him for the question, and tried to dispel, once more, the idea that there’s no longer a place for her in the party. “First of all: no…” 

  • Bernie to the Iowa Caucuses: Drop Dead

    Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a news conference at his New Hampshire headquarters, on Thursday, February 6, 2020 in Manchester, N.H. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

    Before hordes of international press who had trudged through a slushy hellscape in Manchester, New Hampshire, on Thursday afternoon, Bernie Sanders announced what he’d waited three days to say: He had won the most overall votes in the Iowa caucuses. And as he did so, he strongly condemned the caucus process and the Iowa Democratic Party for its handling of the contest.

    To Sanders, it didn’t matter that only 97 percent of the precinct results had been counted—which he readily acknowledged—nor that Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez had called for a re-canvass 30 minutes before Sanders stepped up to the podium. Nor did it matter that the popular vote count Sanders cited had no actual bearing on how Iowa’s delegates would be awarded. When a reporter asked Sanders if declaring victory at this phase would contribute to the sea of campaign spin (at its most innocent) and disinformation (at its most nefarious), the candidate demurred. “No,” he said flatly, “because we got 6,000 more votes.”

    The fact that Sanders could cite that statistic was a triumph unto itself. In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 caucus victory, the Vermont senator and his loyalists had successfully pressed the DNC to adopt new caucus rules that required the Iowa Democratic Party to report the raw vote counts alongside the state delegate equivalents (SDEs). Sanders argued—at the time and since—that the caucus results didn’t wholly reflect the will of the people.

    “I don’t know,” Sanders said today when a reporter asked if he thought he actually won Iowa in 2016. “I don’t think anyone knows.”

    To be certain, nobody knows who won Iowa this cycle, either. While Sanders leads in raw votes, Pete Buttigieg has reportedly led in delegates, though precinct data from satellite caucus sites—which Sanders’ campaign fought to establish and heavily organized—may put Sanders ahead. This fact has given Buttigieg, too, license to declare himself victorious—and he has. But Sanders dismissed Buttigieg’s efforts to cast himself as the winner, calling the difference in delegates each will walk away with “meaningless.” And besides! Sanders had won more votes. (One need not look back too far in history to see how similar arguments have turned out for Democratic presidential hopefuls.)

    But Sanders’ self-described win did nothing to soften his position on Iowa’s caucus process, which he slammed as an affront to Democracy. He deemed the whole situation an “outrage,” the tabulation a “screwup,” and slammed the Iowa Democratic Party for being “extremely unfair” to the candidates and the people of Iowa. “In my view, it is far too complicated,” Sanders said of the process. 

    He shot a little snark Iowa’s way, saying that if the “so-called recount” proceeded as Perez suggested, it would be “very important for the Iowa Democrats, but not important for the rest of the country.” Adding regional insult to injury, Sanders said of his popular vote win in Iowa: “In Northern New England, we call that a victory.”

    Tim Murphy contributed reporting.

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has a Message For Democrats: Vote For the Democratic Nominee “No Matter Who It Is”

    JStone/Shutterstock

    I missed this on Sunday, but it’s something to keep in mind as the primary contests pick up:

    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday issued a warning to the Democratic Party to “rally behind” the party’s eventual presidential nominee or risk damaging their chances to defeat President Trump.

    Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, claimed that reports that her party is conspiring to deny the Vermont independent the nomination are “overblown,” but warned Democrats against using “super delegate or other kind of subversive policies to deny anybody the nomination.”

    “It’s incredibly divisive to do so, and very demoralizing, which is a direct threat in November,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with Time magazine. “The moment you start playing games trying to deny whoever is the nominee, we really start to get into dangerous territory in terms of defeating Trump.”

    I think most Democratic primary voters agree with her.

  • Joe Biden’s Campaign Is Flirting With Dangerous Disinformation About the Iowa Caucuses

    Joe Biden speaks in Des Moines the night of the Iowa caucuses.Brian Cahn/ZUMA

    We still don’t know the final tally of results from the Iowa caucuses, but all initial indications are that it was a very bad night for Joe Biden, who likely placed fourth—by any measure—in the first contest for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

    How has the former VP and erstwhile frontrunner handled the loss? Absolutely horribly.

    This is shockingly irresponsible. Biden’s staff is essentially trying to foster unreasonable doubts in order to cover for the fact that he didn’t do well there.

    Sure, it is frustrating that the Iowa Democratic Party has been slow to release results and less than open about when final numbers will come out. But despite technical issues with that app that was supposed to transmit results to the state party, there is absolutely zero reason to believe that the final results will have been skewed.

    There are many, many problems with how caucuses are conducted, but one upside is that they are near-foolproof when it comes to preventing election-rigging, because the process unfolds entirely in public, giving each side’s supporters a chance to call foul if any numbers don’t add up. When I was in Iowa earlier this week, I watched more than 1,000 voters in downtown Des Moines gather into clusters on different sides of the room designated for each candidate, assess how many voters were in each camp, redivide amongst themselves, and then call it a night. Not only that, each person had to fill out a card marking their preference, creating a lengthy paper trail. If that site—which elected delegates only for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg—magically was reported as electing a ton of delegates for Andrew Yang, there would be hundreds of witnesses who could flag the irregularity.

    Biden himself is at least a bit more honest about what happened, saying in New Hampshire on Wednesday that “we took a gut punch in Iowa.” But he needs to get his campaign staff to keep to that line. Otherwise, questioning the integrity of the results is copying a bit too much from the president he wants to defeat this fall.

  • This Is What It Looks Like When Joe Biden Is Actually Trying to Win Votes

    Former Vice President Joe Biden clenches his fist as he speaks at a campaign event in Somersworth, New Hampshire, on February 5, 2020.Elise Amendola/AP

    Joe Biden hasn’t exactly been bringing the heat to the campaign trail, enjoying his (mostly) uncontested frontrunner status by relying on forgettable debate performances and his signature affectionate style of retail politics. But credit where credit is due: On Wednesday, he was on fire. (Or, at least, you know, relatively speaking—think of it like a small Boy Scout camp fire.)

    Biden had a lot to prove to the mostly white, mostly over-50 crowd who stuffed into a union hall in Somersworth, New Hampshire, on Wednesday afternoon. With the partial results still trickling in from the Iowa dumpster fire caucuses, it seemed likely that the Biden campaign failed to hit even the lowest expectations it had set for the nation’s first contest: It had aimed for third, and as things stand, it will likely land in fourth.

    “We took a gut punch in Iowa,” Biden conceded as he began, lamenting that the caucus process did, too. “But this isn’t the first time in my life I’ve been knocked down.”

    The rest of his speech suggested the way he’s getting back up is by knocking down Iowa’s apparent top finishers, Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.

    The former VP didn’t linger long on his accomplishments in the Senate and Obama White House before pivoting into attack mode. He first turned his attention to Sanders, reminding the crowd—as he has before—of the Vermont senator’s failures to back gun control legislation in the 1990s. He then moved into an electability argument as he took note of Trump’s “socialist” scare tactics and the fact that Sanders self-identifies as one. “We need a nominee who can help Democrats up and down the ticket,” Biden reasoned, “but if Senator Sanders is the nominee…every Democrat will have to carry the label that Senator Sanders has chosen for himself.”

    He then moved onto Buttigieg, weaponizing the former mayor’s claims that Biden is out of touch. “Mayor Pete likes to call me part of the ‘old, failed,’ Washington,” Biden said. He took on “failed” first, listing out accomplishments like the Affordable Care Act and the Paris climate agreement. “Is he really saying the Obama-Biden administration was a failure?” Biden jabbed, “Pete, just say it out loud.” (Never mind that in the closing days of Iowa, as my colleague Tim Murphy recently wrote, Pete was really leaning into a whole consider-me-the-next-Obama thing.) 

    And as for “old”: “Yeah, that was a long time ago—three years ago,” Biden said, the crowd erupting in laugher and applause when the vice president hit the (admittedly mild) punchline.

    For some attendees, seeing Biden in this form helped him pass a sort of sniff test. New Hampshirite Paul Turner, who was watching on Wednesday, told me he considers himself “very liberal,” but feels like Biden is the right candidate for “the conditions we’re in.” The trouble was, he hadn’t seen Biden show the energy he wants to see in the candidate that will take on Trump. “He appealed to me, but I needed to him to liven it up a little bit more,” Turner said. “I’m really happy to see him get more fired up—he fired me up.”

    Wanda Huffmann of Dover, New Hampshire, echoed Turner’s feelings. “I always thought I was going to vote for Joe just because of experience,” Huffmann explains. “I hate to say this, but I wanted to see how much passion Joe had—how much oomph does he have? He did it at the end and impressed me.”

    On the way out, he ignored reporters’ questions asking why he decided to take a negative tack. But it’s clearly part of a new concerted effort: A tweet mirroring his language in Somersworth landed online as he spoke.

  • “God Sent Us Donald Trump,” GOP Senate Candidate Tommy Tuberville Says

    Tommy Tuberville/YouTube

    Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.), one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for reelection this year, faces a difficult impeachment vote as he tries to retain his seat in a state Trump won by 28 points. On Tuesday, Jones said he had “tentatively” made a decision on how he would vote, though he didn’t say what that decision was.

    One of Jones’ potential Republican opponents is having a much easier time making up his mind on Trump. In a new TV ad, former Auburn football head coach Tommy Tuberville describes himself as a no-nonsense Christian conservative who believes that “God sent us Donald Trump because God knew we were in trouble.” It’s a sentiment that Tuberville has expressed before, on an Alabama radio show. 

    Jones will face a difficult test following the contentious Republican primary, which also includes religious extremist Roy Moore—who lost his 2017 bid for the seat amid sexual misconduct allegations (Moore denied the accusations)—and former Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who held Jones’ seat for two decades. One December poll, by JMC Analytics and Polling, found that Tuberville leads Jones by 7 points. Another December poll—which Trump tweeted out in late January with the words “I LOVE ALABAMA!”—showed that Sessions with a narrow lead over Tuberville in the GOP primary.

    In the ad, Tuberville promises to support Trump’s efforts to build a wall on the southern border. He’s previously taken that nativist rhetoric even further, promising to “fight against the invasion of illegal aliens into our country.”

    “I’m not looking for a career,” Tuberville says in the ad, just before it cuts to footage of him carrying a gun and wearing hunting gear. “I’m looking to save this country with Donald J. Trump.” But from who?

  • Trump Campaign Baselessly Suggests Iowa Caucuses Are “Rigged”

    Yuri Gripas/CNP/Zuma

    With Iowa caucus results stalled as the state’s Democratic party performs “quality control” and addresses “inconsistencies,” Republicans are already alleging that the election is rigged. There is, of course, no evidence of that.

    Brad Parscale, President Donald Trump’s campaign manager, took to Twitter Monday night to speculate that “quality control” meant “rigged,” echoing Trump’s repeated claims that the Democratic National Committee was rigging the election against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The president’s sons made similarly baseless claims:

    Bogus allegations of election fraud have become a Republican mainstay in recent years, as the party seeks to restrict voting rights and suppress turnout. 

    For its part, Sanders’ campaign said earlier Monday that the election is “not currently rigged.”

    Mandy McClure, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, has called the delay a “reporting issue,” according to the New York Times. Many precinct chairs have had difficulties using a new app to report caucus results. Those problems are serious, but they don’t constitute a rigged election.

    Listen to Mother Jones’ Ari Berman and Tim Murphy discuss the fallout from the Iowa voting debacle on this week’s special early edition of the Mother Jones Podcast:

  • The Most Hilariously Bizarre Thing I Have Ever Seen Just Happened On CNN

    Nancy Kaszerman/ZUMA

    The Iowa Caucus has turned into a real shit show. The results are delayed for…reasons. Who knows! Maybe an app is broken? I don’t know. But something amazing happened on CNN just now.

    One of the precinct captains was on the phone with Wolf Blitzer talking about how he was on hold with the big shots at the main office, trying to report the results, and he’d been on hold for an hour. And then while saying all of this on CNN, they answered!

    And, well, watch:

    Democracy, baby!