Cacophonous cross talk that’s only seen when there’s no real news to report…
From The New Republic:
A third-party app the party had deployed to count and transmit votes, apparently without adequately training precinct chairs in its use, had failed, so election officials were adapting to changing circumstances, falling back on traditional hand counting and rechecking results. It’s a slower process than what the hoped-for technological innovation promised, but it followed best practices for an election in dispute. For the average voter, it meant waiting for the results to come in. But for politicians who want good headlines and cable news anchors who yearn to report results, it was the worst-case scenario: a slight delay in receiving coveted instant gratification.
For Democrats voting in Iowa—that is, the people whose votes are being counted—the delay will mean nothing. The votes will still be counted, the campaign will go on. But for candidates and journalists, both of whom build narratives that rely on the outcome of the first caucus of the primary season, there is no result worse than a delayed result. Leading the charge was Elizabeth Bruenig, an opinion writer from The New York Times and former staffer at The New Republic. In a since-deleted tweet, she suggested that the Democratic National Committee (which does not directly administer the caucus) had delayed the result after seeing that a leftist candidate might win. Vice reporter Laura Wagner followed suit, declaring the DNC to be “corrupt or incompetent or both.”
Meanwhile, on network television, things were reaching that level of cacophonous cross talk that’s only seen when there’s no real news to report. On CNN, anchors and panelists alike were declaring the proceedings to be an unresolvable fiasco, sure to end the Hawkeye State’s grandest tradition. It could indeed be the end of the first-in-the-nation caucus, but it was the networks themselves who were the main victim of a lack of immediate results, not Iowa voters.