Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

A male senior stands in the shadow of a Social Security card with bite missing.

Social Security faces automatic cuts in 2032 and Medicare in 2033. New polling suggests that gives Democrats a powerful election issue. Here’s the case.

DNY59 / Getty Images

Will the Debt Crisis Engineered by Republicans Succeed in Cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Overview

The Republican Party’s long game to reduce administrative state entitlement spending centers on creating a debt crisis to provide an excuse for limiting such spending. It may soon pay off. That strategy involved a quarter-century of engineered tax cuts responsible for the stunning rise in sovereign U.S. debt, threatening an eventual economic crisis.

Social Security benefits are projected under current law to be automatically cut in 2032. And Medicare benefits are projected to be automatically cut in 2033. Congressional Republicans intend for those automatic cuts to occur, opposing new taxes to prevent cuts. And they are using the ballooning national debt as an excuse to also oppose new general revenue spending to prevent benefit cuts.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Voting in an Election

Americans Voting in an Election

Getty Images

Voting Is Not Just a Privilege It Is Every Citizens’ Responsibility

Despite the consistent determinations that US elections are secure across the country and there is virtually no evidence of non-citizens voting, in reports released as recently as September 2026; President Trump has doubled down on his claims that voter fraud is a major problem in America and on October 20th, he announced a new $25 Million Fraud Whistleblower program to be administered by the Department of Justice.

This announcement achieves a variety of the president’s goals: (i) It intentionally perpetuates the misinformation, that voter fraud is a serious problem in the United States; (ii) it undermines the trust in the voting systems, as well as in the states administering the elections; (iii) it fosters distrust amongst neighbors, who are more likely to suspect people of color and report them for a reward. This has the concomitant benefit of (iv) intimidating people who are in fear of going to the polls and (v) It gives the illusion that the federal government is prepared to give away more free money (along with the Tariff rebate checks, the Trump Accounts, the DOGE dividend, the direct payments for healthcare and the $5,000 for supporting GOP midterm candidates.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building with American flag behind it

Political Polarization and Extremism

Getty Images

Both Parties Have Forgotten How to Lose: It’s Time for Guardrails

On November 3 Americans vote in the midterm elections, and the most important question may be whether the losers accept the result. A Pew survey this summer found that just 55 percent of Americans are confident the midterms will be run fairly and accurately, down from 64 percent in 2022. The partisan detail is more revealing. Since 2024, Republican confidence has risen and Democratic confidence has fallen from 77 percent to 58 percent. Trust in the referee now depends on who holds power.

Democracy rests on a kind of sportsmanship agreement. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it well: man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes it necessary. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, called democracy a method of bringing revolutionary change without bloodshed. Both understood that the system works only if the losing side agrees to try again next time instead of burning down the field. Americans in both parties are forgetting how to do that.

Keep ReadingShow less