Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Will Iowa's ghosts resurface in any other Democratic contests?

Map of United States

New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are the next states to take the national stage.

Milos Subasic/Getty Images; edited by Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum

The first question that will go through the minds of millions of Americans at 8 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, when the polls close in the New Hampshire primary, will likely be a version of this:

We aren't going to have a repeat of the Iowa caucuses, are we?

This week's historic collapse of the system for reporting those results has thrust the mechanics for conducting the rest of the Democratic presidential contest under a spotlight of national anxiety and skepticism. And a bit of it is already justified, even before the next state votes.


The problem in Iowa centered on a hastily constructed and minimally mobile app that was supposed to be used to send the results from almost 1,700 caucus sites quickly and cleanly to a central counting location.

But a variety of problems doomed that concept from the start. Plenty of precinct captains never even tried to download the app, let alone get familiar with it before caucus night. Then flaws in the app's coding did not allow the three sets of results from each location to be transmitted correctly. And the old-fashioned Plan B — calling in the results to a telephone bank at party headquarters in Des Moines — caused a massive backup that apparently was aggravated by a wave of President Trump supporters who called the toll-free number in order to tie it up.

Everybody wants to know whether it could happen again — and, if so, where. That depends on a number of factors: whether the balloting is being conducted by the state government or the state Democratic Party, the latter of which usually has far less experience in running elections; whether the state is one of the few remaining with a caucus, which is more complicated than a primary; and what technologies are being deployed for conducting the vote, transmitting the results from the polling places and tabulating the statewide results.

Here is a quick look at what to expect from the next three Democratic contests, which combine with Iowa to be the de facto opening round that will probably reduce the roster of presidential hopefuls to a viable handful: the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22 and the South Carolina primary on Feb. 29.

New Hampshire

Risk of Iowa redux: LOW

Positives:

  • The election is being run by the state — not by the party, like the Iowa caucuses.
  • There are only 301 precincts — as opposed to the 1,681 in Iowa.
  • It's a straightforward primary, with Democrats allowed to choose one candidate, whereas Iowans could change allegiances between a first and second round.
  • The voting is on paper ballots.
  • Absentee ballots can only be obtained with an excuse, which often limits their number and so makes less work for election officials.

Negatives:

  • There will be more votes to count. This week's Democratic turnout in Iowa totaled about 180,000 participants — but approximately 250,000 voted when Hilary Clinton squared off against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire in 2016.
  • Same-day voter registration could slow down the process if a throng of newbies show up.
  • Experts say the state's voter registration rolls may be vulnerable to hacking.

Nevada

Risk of Iowa redux: MODERATE to HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT

Positive:

  • The Democrats have scrapped plans for using the same app, built by the curiously named Shadow Inc., that caused so much Iowa angst.

Negatives:

  • Like Iowa, this will be a caucus run by the state party — so neither a primary nor a government-run contest. Also, like Iowa's Troy Price, Nevada Democratic Party Chairman William McCurdy has never run a caucus before.
  • There is no replacement yet for the dumped app. And the new process for reporting results has not been announced with two weeks to go.
  • There will be 1,835 different caucuses — or 9 percent more than in Iowa.
  • Early voting is allowed Feb. 15-18. That will require transmitting those results to organizers at each caucus site, and relying on them to include the early ballots in the vote count for each candidate.
  • The party has a new set of rules this year, including a version of ranked-choice voting at the start of the caucuses and a complex method to determine which candidates have enough support to qualify for delegates.

South Carolina

Risk of Iowa redux: LOW

Positives:

  • The state will run the election.
  • It's a traditional primary: There will be 14 names on the ballot (including some who've dropped out) and voters do nothing but mark a single choice for president.
  • Absentee voters must provide an excuse, which usually lowers the number of absentee ballots to be counted.
  • There is no same-day registration that could slow the voting process.

Negatives:

  • The state has a well-earned reputation for dirty politics.
  • It's an open primary, meaning Republicans could swamp the polling places in an attempt to skew the results.

Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less