Former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is feeling angsty about the current state of the Democratic presidential primary and he believes that the voters are a big part of the problem. The ever loquacious Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview on Friday that he was disturbed by the degree to which the electorate seemed so easily wooed by candidates who were willing to spend gobs of money on television advertisements.

... Frank’s complaints about voter behavior didn’t end with their susceptibility to well-funded ad campaigns, he also criticized the demands for ideological purity being placed on the candidates. He pinpointed former Vice President Joe Biden’s troubles on the fact that he was being forced to defend a lengthy voting record that he had since evolved on or, in some cases, shared with his fellow candidates. “It's a sad commentary on the electorate by the way because they are too unforgiving,” said Frank. “And frankly, there are people who are critical of Biden now who probably had the same positions back then.”

And he suggested that Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign had stumbled in large part because she tried to moderate her support for Medicare for All by including bridge-legislation that would have seen it implemented in stages. “She understood the political and administrative problems with Medicare for All, but she was afraid of losing the whole left to [Bernie] Sanders,” said Frank. “And by the way, I think that’s a troubling aspect of the Democratic electorate that so many of those people reacted so badly because she tried to be reasonable.”

Frank has not endorsed in the 2020 race and said he had no plans to do so. But he has not been bashful about his disagreements with the current frontrunner. In 2016 he said support for Sanders’ nomination reflected a “lack of information” among voters. On Friday, he said the Vermont Senator was largely a non-entity when it came to legislative accomplishments. Frank said he believed that Sanders legitimately thought he could pass his expansive domestic policy agenda if he became president. But he called it an absurd proposition that would almost certainly backfire on Democrats...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/barney-frank-democratic-primary-voters-are-the-problem?ref=home

Tucson Mayor Regina Romero has thrown her support into the democratic presidential primary, announcing Monday that she's following the path of several Southern Arizona politicians and endorsing Elizabeth Warren for president.

“Elizabeth Warren is the fighter we need to act boldly on climate change, create economic opportunity for all, and bring big, structural change to our government,” Romero said in a prepared statement provided to the Arizona Daily Star. “She has proven herself to be a champion for women’s rights, and understands the institutional barriers that communities of color face in participating in our economy and democracy. For these reasons and many more, I’m proud to endorse Elizabeth Warren for president.”

In a press release announcing the endorsement, the Warren campaign referred to Romero as a "tireless champion for working families," "a strong advocate for environmental justice," and said she won a "historic election" as Tucson's first female and first Latina to serve as Tucson's mayor. She is one of 100 Latinx community leaders who have endorsed Warren since January, according to the release...

https://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-mayor-regina-romero-endorses-elizabeth-warren-for-president/art

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1226669587317522437

jp-ia
Iowa

I was in charge of doing the calculations in one precinct. I am not surprised at all that inconsistencies were common.

I did not go through any training; I relied on the manual, which I found straightforward, although I can imagine it could get complicated for folks who are not mathematically inclined.

I was designated to download and use the app for my precinct, and in spite of registering to receive the app the day I got the instructions on how to do it, I never received an invitation to download it. A well-intentioned local volunteer shared a spreadsheet in my county as a backup to manual calculations, except the day of the caucus as I was testing it I found it had errors. So did others and an email went out a few hours before the caucus with an updated version that avoided some of the more complicated cases. I don't know how widely the spreadsheet was shared and if everyone who received it got the corrected version.

During the caucus, the number of voters that was used to calculate viability didn't match the number of preference cards we got in the end, which was actually higher (about 2% off). One group that was counted as viable in the 1st round wouldn't have been if we had the right number.

The bottom line is that the process is not accurate, in particular in the allocation of delegates. The best you can do is follow the vote counts, for which at least there's a paper trail. Next time, the way to go is a primary, even better if voters can rank candidates.

Twice I added up the numbers in the First Alignment and Final Alignment columns. The totals were 199 and 190 respectively. The numbers should have been equal, according to the rules, but nine people did not realign after the First Alignment and did not participate in the Final Alignment.

This suggests that Iowa caucus attendees didn't understand what to do, or that they chose not to follow the rules.