Editor's Note: Accuracy is not guaranteed; you can help us get better by highlighting mistakes and suggesting edits! Please fill out this survey if you wish to learn more about us and our mission or send me an email.
Just want to take this opportunity to thank all of those volunteers for the extraordinary effort that they made, which made our victory possible. Now, as everyone knows, the Iowa process is enormously complicated. In my view, it is far too complicated. And one word, if I might, about the so-called state delegate equivalents, S.D., that the cable news and political pundits have spent so much time pontificating about because of changes to Democratic Party rules that were widely supported during the Democratic Unity Reform Commission.
These state delegate equivalents have greatly diminished importance from past caucuses, and they should. In the past, a candidate with more delegates to the state and county conventions could actually change the number of national delegates. Delegates who go to the national convention from that allocated on caucus night. That is no longer the case as it stands right now. To the best of my knowledge, either I or Mr. Budo judge will end with a tiny fraction of an advantage in the SD.
I think he's ahead now by some three and a half state delegates out of twenty one hundred and fifty total number of delegates. That may change. We may go in the lead by a little bit, given the remaining precincts outstanding and mathematical errors which we are discovering in the data. We could well end up with more SD, but this difference, no matter who inches ahead in the end, is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, I think.
Right now it is about eleven each probably go up a bit. Those national delegates, not the state delegates, are the ones that really matter in the nominating process. And now that Iowa is hopefully finally behind us. Let me take this opportunity to thank the thousands of volunteers here in New Hampshire who are out today on the streets in rain and snow, knocking on doors, making the phone calls that have to be made using social media in order to help us win here in Iowa.
Last point that I want to make is I have been asked over and over again why I believe that we are the campaign to defeat Donald Trump. And let me tell you why that is the case. At the end of the day, in order to defeat Donald Trump, who will be a very formidable opponent. We are going to need an unprecedented grassroots movement of folks who are prepared to knock on doors and do all of the things that I will supporters did in Iowa.
And they're doing right here in New Hampshire and they're doing right now in California and in Nevada and South Carolina and all across this country. Our campaign is, I believe, the campaign that is putting together a multi generational bow tie racial process in which we are bringing people together around an agenda that is speaking to the working families of this country. We're not out raising huge sums of money for millionaires and billionaires. We have an agenda that is going to take on the millionaires and the billionaires.
We have an agenda which is going to deal with income and wealth inequality. We have an agenda which is going to raise wages for the working families of this country, an agenda which says finally, after 100 hundred years of talk, now is the time to do what every other major country on earth is doing, and that is to guarantee health care to all people. As a human rights, I think we have the grassroots movement that wins. We have the agenda that wins.
I'm confident that we're going to do really well here in New Hampshire, having won Iowa. We're gonna do very well in Nevada. Think we'll do a lot better than people think in South Carolina. I think we've got a good shot to win California. And bottom line, I believe that we are well-positioned to win the Democratic nomination and to defeat the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country. Thank you all very much.
CBS. What's up with CBS that we're going?
So Senator Tom Parise is calling for essentially a recount in this process. Is that something that you would support and do you trust that the people running the party in Iowa are effective in doing their job?
All I can say is what I just said is we won an eight person election by some 6000 votes. That is not going to be changed. What may be changed in this so-called recount is a few as the ease here. But at the end of the day, as I've just indicated, these s these are not what these SD will do is go to a convention in Iowa. They will determine who the Iowa chairman is. They will determine the rules of the Iowa Democratic Party.
Very important, I guess, the Iowa Democrats, but not important for the rest of the country. At the end of the day, what will I expect almost definitely happen is that Mr. Boodle judge and I will end up with the same amount of delegates. Eleven now each. Probably a little bit more. That's what will happen. Ain't going to change. And what certainly is not going to change is the fact that in terms of the popular vote, we want a decisive victory.
So you are what? I'm sorry. Yeah.
So, Senator, there's been a lot of accounting issues and a lot of issues with the Iowa Democratic Party. How should people respond to that? Should they trust the Iowa Democratic Party here?
I think what you should trust are two things. Number one, and I really do feel bad for the people of Iowa because I have been all over the state. As you well know, we have held 120 rallies and town meetings. And these are serious people who are trying to do the best they can in determining who the best candidate for president is. And I think what has happened with the Iowa Democratic Party is an outrage that they were that unprepared, that they put forth such a complicated process, relied on untested technology.
And also, to be honest with you. They have relied on thousands of volunteers, good people who get to have to get up and go to work the next day to do what is enormously complicated. And I think there is very little doubt that what happened on Monday night, that type of process, that complicated process, that is never, ever. I don't think going to happen again.
Senator Sanders, Mayor Pete's been declaring a win for days now.
Why should people believe your victory speech overheads?
Because I got 6000 more votes. And from where I come when you got six thousand more votes. That's generally regarded to be the winner. Yes.
Yeah. Senator, here's part of the recount is from the satellite caucuses, which you were doing very well. And are you worried about, you know, why this recount was called specifically with those those votes in mind?
No, I don't think it's going to be. I. I just learned about this a few minutes ago. But I think if they're going to do this recount, it'll be for every precinct in the state. And look, in terms of the satellite caucuses, the purpose of the satellite caucuses, which is a good purpose. You know, one of the problems that you have with a caucus that takes place at 7 o'clock in an evening. Well, what happens if you're a working person?
What happens if you're a mom who has two kids and you can't come out to a caucus? And what I think the Iowa Democratic Party tried to do correctly is say, OK, if you can't come out, if you're a student, that a night class, we will provide you an opportunity to vote. And most of the people, I think a voter are working class people. And you're right. We did very, very well in those sort of like caucuses.
And I'm proud of that victory. OK. Yeah. Right.
Joe Biden said yesterday that Donald Trump is desperate to be in the socialist label, her label on our party. Why are you so certain that your own self as a democratic socialist won't have serious blowback in November?
Let me tell my good friend Joe that when we're dealing with somebody like Donald Trump, who lies all of the time, he will pin any label that he wants on any candidate. It doesn't really matter. But I think the agenda that we have is the agenda that speaks to the working families of this country. Let me tell you something else. We will expose Trump not only for the liar, pathological liar that he is, but for the fraud that is total fraud.
And this is a man, as all of you know, who spends half his life demonizing the undocumented in this country. He just hates the undocumented. How terrible it is. And yet, as a private business man, he hired quite knowledgeably hundreds and hundreds of undocumented workers in his resorts and in construction projects so he could save money. This is a guy who says, oh, I hate outsourcing. We got to make sure that corporations create jobs here in the United.
It's not go to cheap labor countries abroad. This is a business man who manufactured his products in low wage countries abroad, in Turkey, in China and other low wage countries. He is a fraud. He is a liar. And we will expose him for what he has.
This is a man who during his campaign, he said, my tax plan, you know, is going to not benefit the wealthy. It's going to benefit working families. Eighty three percent of the benefits of his tax plan have gone to the top 1 percent over a 10 year period. And we end up with the absurdity of companies like Amazon, which made 10 billion dollars in profit last year, last year, not paying a nickel in federal income taxes.
So we will have an opportunity during this campaign to expose Trump not only as a liar, but as a fraud. Yes, ma'am.
Thank you, Senator Sanders. So Michael Bloomberg is skipping the early states. There'll be a debate tomorrow night. He won't be on the stage. Do you think it's fair that the Democratic Party altered or revised the rules, tie out him with it? Not me. At least put the question to answer.
I you want to look at where I'm going? Do you think it's fair that the rules are now allowing Michael Bloomberg to come in? And I'm looking at you as I see your slogan there, burning out the billionaire. So could you comment?
I live in areas that we have an s at the end of it.
So could you comment not only on the debate, but and the even more money that Bloomberg is putting in the contest?
Thank you for the question. I knew what the question was. I was going to answer it the same way. You gotta make sure that.
You know, I think it is an outrage. Look, rules are rules.
And people like Julian Castro played by the rules campaign really hot. Cory Booker played by the rules. Tulsi Gabbard played by the rules. Andrew Young played by the rules. They were here in New Hampshire. They were in Iowa. They have worked really, really hard. And for based on the rules determined by the DNC, they were unable to participate in one or more debates.
And now suddenly a guy comes in who does not campaign one bit. And I want no Hampshire. He's not on the ballot, I guess, in Nevada or South Carolina, but he's worth fifty five billion dollars. And I guess if you're worth fifty five billion dollars, you can get the rules changed for a debate. So to answer your question, I think that that is an absolute outrage and really unfair. And I say this because these are the guys, all my friends, the people like Cory Booker or Julian Castro or Tulsi Gabbard, who work really, really hard.
They were excluded, but they are not multi-billionaires. That's wrong.
Yeah. We'll see how the first one goes.
A lot of Democrats are gonna hear what you're saying this morning. Members who are actually people who actually are members of the Democratic Party and will say, why not wait?
Why not let Iowa finish counting first before declaring victory?
Aren't you confusing the process by doing so?
Well, I would hope, given the fact that we have waited three days and now there is the talk of another recount. You know, maybe we might want the decisions of the Iowa caucus before the November elections. But I think what is very clear, two points is what is not going to change is that we won a very significant victory in the popular vote. We won a very significant victory in the re-alignment vote. And if you go out on the streets to New Hampshire, you go to Vermont.
You ask people, how do you determine who wins an election? Well, from where I come from and where everybody else comes from, the person who gets the most votes wins. We got the most votes. And as I said before, and I got to say this to my friends in the media is you guys have been putting too much emphasis on these as these.
There's a confusion that SD will determine the number of national delegates. National delegates are important. SD do not determine they determine who the party chair is, the rules of the Iowa Democratic Party.
So as I said earlier, I think in terms of, you know, the basic question are coming out of Iowa, how many delegates we have, how many delegates? Those. How many does a bootlegger. That is not determined by these s. So I think it is fair to say that, you know, we won the caucus.
And was there something specific that you talked about, a multi-racial grassroots movement in Iowa? Was there something specific you did in Iowa either targeting certain community or certain part of the state that you anticipate doing again? Don't rule out any other states.
BLOCK The whole thrust of what our campaign is about is to understand. That in America, we have one of the lowest voter turnouts of any major country on Earth. That's what we do. And the reason for that are many fold. One of them is that a whole lot of working class people here in New Hampshire, Vermont, all over this country. They're working two or three jobs. They can't afford childcare.
This meant that half of their income in housing, they can't afford to send their kids to college. And they are saying, who is concerned about me? I turn on the TV and they are all this blah, blah, everybody worrying about me. And I'm going to retire at 65. But I don't have anything in the bank for retirement. Anyone worried about me? Or is it just the billionaires and the wealthy who determine what goes on in Washington?
A lot of those people say it's all nonsense. We're not going to vote. We don't want to waste my vote. The whole system is so corrupt. And the essence of our campaign is to talk to those people, to knock on those doors, the doors of black voters and white voters and Latino voters and Asian American and Latino and Native American voters say, you know what, if we all stand together.
Yeah, we can take on the billionaire class, which now dominates what goes on in Washington both politically and from an economic perspective. Yeah, we can't create an economy and a government that works for all of us. OK. Yes. Hi.
Based on these inconsistencies that we're seeing and the results and because this is the first time that we've had the popular vote results, does this make you question the results of the 2016 Iowa caucuses? And do you think that there should be a caucus system at all? That's a good question.
I don't want to revisit 2016. All I can say is you're right. We fought for, by the way, the fact that we now have clear results of the popular vote is something that we fought for that did not exist in 2016. Now, I can't give you a definitive answer as to what happened in 2016. I don't know. I don't think anybody knows. It turned out that in 2016, I think Secretary Clinton got one or two more delegates than we got in the state process.
There is some supposition that we actually won the popular vote. I can't say that definitively. I can't say definitively that in 2020 we did win the popular vote. I want to reiterate to you. So we're clear. You got a hundred eighty thousand people voting when you got eight candidates. When you win the popular vote by 6000 votes. That is a pretty good victory. Yes. Yes.
You've suddenly the process in Iowa should not repeat itself. Do you think the caucus itself should remain first?
I think it depends on how you do it. But the Iowa caucus is just a much, much, much too complicated. I mean, on one hand, you've got to determine the popular vote that you've got to do. If you want to talk about realignment and you can make the argument, you know, you can make the argument, OK. When I was with somebody else and get fifteen percent, should those people have an option to go elsewhere?
You can make that argument. But then when you go into calculating these as these men, that is enormously complicated, you know? I mean, the answer is what I just told you, what I believe to be the case. No, it's not. I do believe it to be the case. We're gonna win by six thousand votes. We will end up with the same number of delegates to the Democratic National Convention as we'll miss the Buddha. Does that sound right?
In a certain sense, it doesn't smell right. One would think that if you win pretty good victory in the popular vote, you would get more national delegates. It's a complicated formula, kind of. And so forth. So what will not happen again, if I have anything to say about it? Is a caucus this complicated, you know, that will not happen again?
Yes, ma'am. OK. Maybe one more question. Yes, ma'am.
Senator, a key part of your argument for the general election, your electability, is that you're going to boost turnout by bringing all these people into the process that haven't been voting. Iowa turnout doesn't look like it was higher than last time. Does that concern you?
It does. And I would have liked to have seen a higher turnout. I think I can probably speak for every other candidate. But this is what I do want to say. I want to say where I am very excited and what I think bodes well for the overall 2020 election.
And that is that last year in the in 2016 in the Iowa caucus, in terms of voters who young people from 17 to 29, 18 percent of the total vote, 18 percent was under 29 this election, 24 percent. That was a very significant, very significant increase in young people participating in the Iowa caucus at. Shuli, as I understand it, it turns out to be even higher percentage wise than the turnout of young people in 2008 when there was a massive turnout.
That Obama won. So that does give me a lot about those. I believe, as I've said many times, that the young people of this country, the younger generation, is the most progressive young generation in the modern history of this country and to defeat Trump. We are going to have to mobilize young people who are concerned deeply about climate change. They're concerned deeply about racism and sexism and homophobia and xenophobia. They are concerned and very worried about the kind of student debt that they are carrying.
They're worried about the cost of housing. If we can mobilize in Iowa is a good start in that process. If we can mobilize and bring young people into the political process, I think it will have a very positive and profound impact on the general election.
Thank you all very much.