There has often been some fuzziness in the way the results of the Iowa caucuses were calculated and reported. But this is the first year that Iowa Democrats released raw vote counts. The transparency provided the public with its first opportunity to check the complex math that determines which candidates get the delegates they need to win the Democratic nomination.
And in many cases, the math did not check out. In such a close race — Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., is leading Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont by a tenth of a percentage point — even small mistakes can add up.
Nevada Democrats are planning to use a new caucus tool that will be preloaded onto iPads and distributed to precinct chairs to help facilitate the Caucus Day process, according to multiple volunteers and a video recording of a volunteer training session on Saturday.
Now that data is officially out, it confirms the numbers in the tweet: Sanders had 101 voters and Buttigieg had 66 on final alignment, but both received 4 delegates.
The full picture painted by the data is 101 votes for Sanders, 66 for Buttigieg, and 48 for Biden, plus 25 uncommitted voters, for a total of 240. Delegates were officially distributed 4-4-2 for Sanders-Buttigieg-Biden. But that should have been 5-3-2.
The US intelligence community anticipates foreign actors will try to use the same tactics again in 2020, and there are already signs of interference from Russia (Moscow denies all claims of meddling).
(6.11.2018) I wanted to make sure that I had not overlooked something in my calculations, so later on November 1st I emailed Laure Resplandy querying the ΔAPOClimate trend figure in her paper and asking for her to look into the difference in our trend estimates as a matter of urgency, explaining that in view of the media coverage of the paper I was contemplating web-publishing a comment on it within a matter of days. To date I have had no substantive response from her, despite subsequently sending a further email containing the key analysis sections from a draft of this article.
How might Laure Resplandy [xiv] have miscalculated the ΔAPOClimate trend as 1.16 per meg per year?
(15.11.2018) Media around the world seized upon the report as yet another indicator of climate-change doom and runaway global warming. No surprise, since most of the media faithfully adhere to the Holy Church of Global Warming.