There doesn’t seem to be any indication this was anything but a regular screwup. Throwing around suggestions of a vague conspiracy looks unwarranted.
You’re suggesting that to avoid suspicion companies providing services to political campaigns must be apolitical and to have never previously provided services to a candidate in the race or any previous opponent of a candidate in the race. How could that even be possible?
The idea that the Democratic nominating process would be rigged is not ipso facto crazy given that it is publicly acknowledged to have actually happened last election cycle.
Maybe you can provide more details of your hypothesis, but what you have so far doesn’t make sense.
The count has been frozen at "62%" for six hours now. That just happens to be the first/only level at which "Mayor Pete" had a delegate lead over Bernie, even though Bernie still leads the popular vote. Several days from now, when the count ticks up to 100%, Bernie will lead both measures by large margins. Still, in the meantime, the corporate media can pretend like the Mayor is ahead. They know he's going to bomb in SC worse than Biden bombed in Iowa, but they're hoping that somehow they can get him to "Super Tuesday" when the other Mayor can take over for him due to his 9-figure ad spend.
Of course, the idea that the perfect candidate to beat a vain old NY rich guy is another vain old NY rich guy who also banned soft drinks the last time he held elected office is risible, but they don't care about that. The point is to ratfuck any candidate who might plausibly do fewer stupid wars.
Some people like to bore us with the "once is a coincidence" maxim. Some of them might like to pretend that this caucus is "once" and we'll have to wait a week or two to get upset about the ratfucking. Normal voters can remember four years ago, however, and this isn't even just the fourth time the national "Democratic" apparatus has ratfucked Bernie.
Is it really so difficult to keep your public persona neutral and vanilla if you're a damn CEO? Wasn't this standard practice until recently? What, because Trump vomits on Twitter 24/7 everyone else needs to as well?
I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so here’s your chance: any particular reason we shouldn’t dismiss you as not being serious?
No, I think it's questionable when a CEO publicly discloses a strong political bias, receives private funds from the personally favored candidate, has cordial photos with the candidate at social events, and then is hired by the DNC and charged with being unbiased in a secret, electronically controlled ballot.
There are tens of millions of dollars changing hands in the ramp up to the election. This is not a complex scheme involving millions of mouths to keep shut and olympic mental gymnastics to justify. A handful of politically leaning and/or paid off devs add a package to the code and you have whatever results you want.
Ask yourself, do you really think corruption only exists outside of the United States? The bottom line is there are many discrepancies which happen to align toward a possibly calculated malicious intent. This feels like a "conspiracy theory" because there are so many tenuously linked components and no hard proof - but that's how any real life unfolding event looks until people have poured over it for months post facto and sorted through everything.
In any case what I'm saying is that there's plenty of incompetence and bias here to at least be prudently suspicious.
The Iowa Caucuses are neither secret (like absurdly not) nor electronic?