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

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

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.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate