Republicans used to know that patriotism isn't about words, it's what you do. But today's congressional Republicans have lost sight of that.

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump and his Republican allies focused on exacting payback against his political opponents Thursday after his acquittal in his Senate impeachment trial, signaling that the conflict that has consumed Washington for months may only escalate rather than recede.Choosing retaliation over reconciliation, Trump lashed out at Democrats and the one Republican senator who voted for conviction. He turned a prayer breakfast into a launching pad for political attacks and then staged a long, rambling venting session at the White House where he denounced "evil" and "crooked" lawmakers and the "top scum" at the FBI for trying to take him down.Trump's team indicated that his desire to turn the tables on his foes may go beyond just tough language. The White House press secretary declared that Democrats "should pay for" impeaching the president, and the Trump administration worked to facilitate a Senate Republican investigation of Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, the goal of Trump that was at the heart of his impeachment."It was evil," Trump said of the investigations that led to his Senate trial in an hourlong stream-of-consciousness address to supporters in the East Room of the White House, tossing aside the more calibrated text prepared by his staff. "It was corrupt. It was dirty cops. It was leakers and liars, and this should never ever happen to another president, ever. I don't know that other presidents would have been able to take it."Democrats showed little sign of backing down either. House Democrats have already said they are likely to resume their investigation into Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to incriminate the Bidens, while a Senate Democrat on Thursday called for an inquiry into whether the administration covered up related information by improperly classifying it.Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who sat just feet from Trump as he questioned her faith during the annual National Prayer Breakfast, later pushed back against his implication that she was disingenuous for saying she prayed for him. Some of his remarks, she said, were "particularly without class" and "so inappropriate at a prayer breakfast."She also suggested that Trump appeared to be on medication during his State of the Union address Tuesday. "He looked to me like he was a little sedated," she told reporters. "Looked that way last year, too."Trump's vituperative performance Thursday was the diametrical opposite of how President Bill Clinton responded to his own acquittal after a Senate impeachment trial in 1999. On the day he was cleared of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, Clinton appeared alone in the Rose Garden, said he was "profoundly sorry" and called for "reconciliation and renewal."His Republican opponents at the time were just as eager to move on, feeling burned after losing seats in midterm elections and watching not one but two of their House speakers step down. One important difference is that Clinton was in his second term, while Trump is seeking reelection in a campaign framed in part by the impeachment debate.For Trump, the Senate's rejection of the two articles of impeachment against him Wednesday was marred by the fact that Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was the only senator to break rank, joining every Democrat in voting to convict Trump for abuse of power.Angry at Romney's defection, Trump waited a day to appear in person with supporters in the East Room in a ceremony that veered between celebration and confrontation.Trump held up a copy of The Washington Post to show its banner headline, "Trump Acquitted," then reviewed the long litany of investigations against him over the last three years, dismissing them as partisan efforts to stop him from serving as president."We first went through Russia, Russia, Russia," he said, mocking the investigations into the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf and ties between his campaign and Moscow. "It was all bullshit," he said, the first time he or any president has been known to use that profanity in a formal event on camera in the East Room, according to Factba.se, a research service.The talk included a greatest-hits string of attacks on some of Trump's top villains, including former FBI director James Comey ("that sleazebag"); his onetime deputy Andrew G. McCabe; former FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok ("two lowlifes"); and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, as well as Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.He called Pelosi "a horrible person" and Romney "a failed presidential candidate" who used "religion as a crutch" and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead House manager, a "corrupt politician."The president thanked his lawyers and congressional Republicans, praising them one by one for their support. In particular, he highlighted Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader and his most important defender in the Senate. "You did a fantastic job," Trump told him.He called out more than a dozen other Republican defenders, including Reps. Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader; Jim Jordan of Ohio; Mark Meadows of North Carolina; and Elise Stefanik of New York. Noticeably absent, and unmentioned by the president, were Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer at the center of the Ukraine pressure campaign, and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of his most outspoken allies."This is sort of a day of celebration, because we went through hell," Trump said. "But I'm sure they'll try and cook up other things," he added of the Democrats, "because instead of wanting to heal our country and fix our country, all they want to do -- in my opinion, it's almost like they want to destroy our country. We can't let it happen."In the wake of Trump's acquittal, Republican senators pressed their inquiries into Hunter Biden's finances, seeking to prove that the president was right to insist that Ukraine investigate him and the former vice president.A spokeswoman for Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the Treasury Department had readily complied with a request by the Republican majority for documents related to Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine, contrasting with the administration's refusal to provide papers for the House impeachment inquiry.For their part, Democrats were still seeking investigations, too. Sen. Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut asked the Government Accountability Office to review whether the Trump administration misused classification power to hide information about the president's Ukraine pressure campaign. And House Democrats have already said they will probably subpoena John Bolton, a former national security adviser, to ask about Ukraine.Stephanie Grisham, the White House press secretary, said Democrats should be made to answer for what she called a dishonest attack on Trump. "Maybe people should pay for that," she said on Fox News. Asked to elaborate, she equated Trump with the United States. "People should be held accountable for anything they do to hurt this country and this president," she said.Trump's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast was as overtly political as any president has delivered at the annual event, traditionally a bipartisan affair marked by talk of faith and common ground. He triumphantly held up newspapers reporting his acquittal, cited rising stock markets, boasted about his approval rating and urged the audience to vote in the fall.Trump's speech followed a keynote address by Arthur Brooks, a Harvard professor and prominent conservative thinker, who called on Americans to "love your enemies." At one point, Brooks asked the audience, "How many of you love somebody with whom you disagree politically?" Hands around the room shot up. "I'm going to round that off to 100%," he said. But Trump did not raise his hand."Contempt is ripping our country apart," Brooks continued. "We're like a couple on the rocks in this country." Without directly mentioning Trump, Brooks added: "Ask God to take political contempt from your heart. And sometimes when it's too hard, ask God to help you fake it."Trump made no effort to fake it. "Arthur, I don't know if I agree with you," he said when he took the microphone. "I don't know if Arthur is going to like what I'm going to say."He then launched into his grievances. "As everybody knows, my family, our great country and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people," he said.Without naming them, Trump singled out Romney and Pelosi. "I don't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong," Trump said of Romney. Then, referring to Pelosi, he said, "Nor do I like people who say, 'I pray for you,' when they know that's not so."It was the first time the speaker and the president had appeared together since the State of the Union address, when Trump refused to shake Pelosi's hand before his speech and she ripped up her copy of his speech after he gave it. When Pelosi gave a short talk at Thursday's breakfast about the poor and persecuted, Trump refused to look at her, glowering with undisguised antipathy.By the end of his speech at the prayer breakfast, Trump recognized that his message did not fit the love-your-enemies theme. "I apologize. I'm trying to learn," he said. "It's not easy. It's not easy. When they impeach you for nothing, then you're supposed to like them? It's not easy, folks. I do my best."At a news conference later at the Capitol, Pelosi dismissed Trump's comments. "I don't know if the president understands about prayer," she told reporters, but said she prays "hard for him because he's so off the track of our Constitution, our values.""He really needs our prayers," she added. "He can say whatever he wants. But I do pray for him."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats, back on their heels after President Donald Trump's acquittal of impeachment charges, wrestled Thursday with a question that could determine their party's fate in November: Now what?As Trump took an ostentatious victory lap at the White House, Democrats were grappling with how to balance their policy agenda and their determination to continue aggressive investigations of a president they view as a threat to the country.With just five months left in the legislative year and nine before the elections, Democrats concede they have to make some tough decisions."It's something we need to talk about," said Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., the chairman of the House Budget Committee. He said that the issue came up during the weekly closed-door meeting of committee leaders.Democrats believe they won back the House majority in 2018 with a laser focus on health care and the economy. But they are also revolted by an unrepentant president and reluctant to abandon investigations into his conduct that might yield evidence of wrongdoing. With Trump emboldened by his acquittal, some say investigating him is more important than ever.Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed ready to make a pivot Thursday, less than 24 hours after the Senate verdict that he was not guilty ended a five-month impeachment drama that consumed the Capitol.At her weekly news conference, Pelosi spent the bulk of her opening remarks talking about Trump's State of the Union address -- "appalling," she said -- and pushing back on his claims that he is responsible for the nation's economic turnaround.But she also vowed not to let up on oversight of his policies and personal conduct."We will continue to do our oversight to protect and defend the Constitution," Pelosi said.Putting that into practice may prove fraught. Democratic leaders must decide in the coming days whether to carry on with the investigation into Trump's effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals, which led the House to impeach the president on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.The biggest question at the moment is whether to issue a subpoena for John Bolton, the former national security adviser, after senators refused to consider new testimony in the impeachment trial. Doing so could yield damaging new information, but it also risks making Democrats look like sore losers.On Wednesday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Judiciary Committee chairman and an impeachment manager, said that the House should subpoena Bolton, who has written a tell-all book that contains a direct account of Trump's decision to leverage nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine in exchange for the investigations.But Democrats also recognize that Bolton may be less receptive to speaking to the House now that Trump has been acquitted. On Thursday, neither Pelosi nor Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the House Intelligence Committee chairman and the leader of the impeachment prosecution team, would say what they intend to do."We really haven't made any decisions yet," Schiff said.Some of the Democrats' long-running investigations into Trump are continuing quietly, and others are proceeding in the federal courts, where the House is party to a handful of consequential legal fights over access to Trump's tax returns, other financial information and witness testimony and documents related to Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.Several of the fights could go to the Supreme Court and perhaps be decided before November's elections. If Democrats were to win access, say, to Trump's federal tax returns, or a court forced Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, to testify about Trump's attempts to thwart the Russia investigation, it could produce a new round of high-profile hearings about whether the president had broken the law -- an inquiry that would surely reverberate in the presidential campaign.Lower-profile work by the House Oversight and Reform, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees has scrutinized the Trump administration's border policies, the decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, politicization of the State Department and the responses to devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean.But the question is one of emphasis, and how Democrats answer it could shape voters' views of them heading into the next election. Rep. Donna Shalala, D-Fla., who served as health secretary to President Bill Clinton, repeated a single phrase when asked what Democrats should do next."Health care, health care, health care," said Shalala, who is working on legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs and to end surprise medical billing.As is the case with most intraparty Democratic debates, moderates and progressives fall into different camps. Moderates want to talk to voters about "kitchen table" issues. Progressives want to send the message that the House will continue to act as a check on a president clearly emboldened by his acquittal."People in Wisconsin, people in Michigan, people in Ohio, people in Pennsylvania, people in North Carolina, they're going to vote for their member of Congress or a president based on what that party is focused on," said Rep. Tim Ryan, a centrist Democrat from Ohio. "They are focused on their own economic situation. They will punish a party that is not focused on those issues."But progressives like Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Jamie Raskin of Maryland said that Democrats should redouble their efforts to rein in Trump."We must make sure that this administration does not continue to break the law," Omar said.Raskin framed it this way: "We have the exact same oversight duties and powers as we did before. He also has not won himself the right to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and the people."Even so, there were signs Thursday that the House's marquee inquiries will shift into a lower gear. Norman L. Eisen and Barry H. Berke, who served as special counsels to the Judiciary Committee for its long-running abuse of power investigation and then formed part of its core impeachment team, are both expected to depart in the coming weeks.The internal discussion over next steps comes as the relationship between Trump and Pelosi has hit a new low, raising questions about whether it is even possible for them to work together on legislative matters. Both the president and the speaker have said that they want legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs and to fix the nation's crumbling infrastructure.But if the events of Thursday were any guide, they can barely stand to be in the same room with one another. At a White House celebration of his acquittal, Trump boasted about having taken a shot at Pelosi during the National Prayer Breakfast earlier that day."I had Nancy Pelosi sitting four seats away, and I said things that a lot of people wouldn't have said," Trump said. "But I meant every one of them."At the Capitol, Pelosi shot back, saying Trump looked "a little sedated" at the State of the Union. "That was not a State of the Union," she said. "That was his state of his mind."As Democrats contemplated the road ahead, Republicans were giddy, portraying the House's failed impeachment case as a misguided overreach.Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, called impeachment "a colossal political mistake." Americans, he said, "are more likely to focus at this point and for the rest of the year on, what kind of shape is the country in? How are you feeling about things? Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company

The White House may dismiss Col. Alexander Vindman from his post at the National Security Council after he served as a witness in the House impeachment hearings, Bloomberg News reported on Friday.According to officials familiar with the matter, the Trump administration could sign off on the move as part of a larger effort to downsize the foreign policy bureaucracy. Staff were told on Thursday that several officials would be reassigned to new posts, and some officials believe the administration is trying to lessen the influence of people perceived as disloyal to the president.Vindman was a key witness for Democrats during the impeachment inquiry due to his firsthand knowledge of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump urged Zelensky to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden."I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens…it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained," Vindman said in his statement to House impeachment investigators. "This would all undermine U.S. national security."Vindman is a decorated veteran of the Iraq War, and his twin brother Yevgeniy serves as an NSC lawyer. The two arrived in the U.S. as toddlers when their family fled Soviet Ukraine.Several congressmen backed Vindman after former representative Sean Duffy and media personalities questioned the colonel's loyalty to the U.S."We’re talking about decorated veterans who have served this nation," said Representative Liz Cheney (R., Wy.). "It is shameful to question their patriotism, their love of this nation, and we should not be involved in that process.""It’s despicable,” Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.V.) said regarding accusations against Vindman. “This is not normal. There’s nothing normal about this.”

President Trump’s impeachment ended with a reminder of why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resisted the idea for so long — an acquittal everyone saw coming, followed by a bombastic presidential victory lap and a bump in his poll numbers just as the 2020 campaign officially began.

Bill Clinton apologized for his behavior that led to impeachment. In contrast, Donald Trump railed against "scum" and "evil" foes who put him through "hell."

An internal report from the Fox News research department warns that several prominent Fox News guests, aided sometimes by omissions from Sean Hannity, have spread "disinformation" about Ukraine. The briefing, written by senior political affairs specialist Bryan S. Murphy and titled "Ukraine, Disinformation, and the Trump Administration," was first disclosed in a series of tweets from former Fox News freelancer Marcus DiPaola, then obtained in full by The Daily Beast. Murphy compiles reports for the Fox News "Brain Room," a research arm of the network's news division.The report specifically points to "disinformation" on Ukraine from President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Fox News contributor and Hill columnist John Solomon, and married legal team Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing.DiGenova and Toensing are part of Trump's legal circle and also represent Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash, a fact not disclosed last fall when they were "spreading disinformation" on Fox News and "parroting ... beneficial narratives while employed by Firtash," Murphy wrote. Giuliani had a "high susceptibility to disinformation" from Firtash and former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko, he added, and Solomon, an opinion columnist typically referred to as an "investigative reporter" by Hannity, "played an indispensable role in the collection and domestic publication of elements of this disinformation campaign." Trump cites Solomon's work, now under review by The Hill, while defending himself in the Ukraine scandal.Mitch Kweit, senior vice president of the Brain Room, told The Daily Beast that "the 200 page document has thousands of data points, and the vast majority have no relation to Fox News — instead it's now being taken out of context and politicized to damage the network." Read more at The Daily Beast.More stories from theweek.com Elizabeth Warren's last chance Susan Collins says she's 'obviously' against Trump's payback targeting impeachment witnesses American democracy is dying

Republican Sen. Susan Collins drew attention with her deliberative approach to the impeachment trial, giving Democrats hope she might vote to convict President Donald Trump. Then she did just what many Democrats figured she would do: She ultimately followed the party-line vote in acquitting the president. Democrats believe Collins’ mind was made up all along, long before Wednesday’s vote.

Multiple officials in the State Department and the White House are cooperating in a security-related investigation into Andrew Peek, the former senior director for Russia and Europe at the National Security Council, The Daily Beast has learned. Peek was escorted off the grounds of the White House on Jan. 17 and placed on administrative leave pending investigation, the details of which have been closely held. Axios previously reported that Peek was expected to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos prior to his exit. He had barely been on the Russia job for two months. Since then, rumors have swirled within the ranks of the White House, State Department, and on social media about the reason for Peek’s sudden exit. The Trump administration has said nothing to explain Peek’s departure.But two officials familiar with the probe tell The Daily Beast that the investigation has been ongoing for several months and that Peek’s State Department colleagues raised concerns about him before he left to join the White House’s staff. However, one official who spoke to The Daily Beast also said Peek had close, collegial working relationships with several individuals at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs during his time at State. Peek has also retained counsel, those officials said.Peek did not comment on the record for this story. The White House and State Department also did not respond to a request for comment.Peek, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, got his start in the Trump administration working in the State Department as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq and Iran. Before that, Peek worked as a U.S. Army intelligence officer in Afghanistan after Gen. David Petraeus selected him for his commander’s initiatives group. He also previously advised Sens. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Mike Johanns (R-NE). Peek’s mother is a contributor to Fox News and his father works in the Manhattan banking industry. Several days after his departure, President Donald Trump tweeted and quoted Elizabeth Peek: “‘This is all about undermining the next Election.’ Liz Peek, @FoxNews.”As part of his job in the Trump administration, Andrew Peek traveled often to the Middle East and worked on Iran policy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who previously served as State’s special envoy for hostage affairs, tapped Peek for the senior role on the National Security Council this past summer, several officials told The Daily Beast.The last two officials in Peek’s role at the NSC, Tim Morrison and Fiona Hill, testified in the House impeachment investigation into Trump. Matt Dimmick, formerly the director for Russia at the Pentagon, has taken Peek’s place at the National Security Council.Fiona Hill Ties Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Back to RussiagateMultiple other White House officials have been pushed out of their positions in the Trump era. Rob Porter, who served as a senior aide to the president, was forced out after multiple allegations that he emotionally and physically abused women. Darren Beattie, a speechwriter and policy aide to Trump, was ousted in 2018 after it became known that he attended a conference frequented by white nationalists. He was later hired by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Reince Priebus, Trump’s former chief of staff, got the boot in July 2017 due to unsatisfactory job performance reviews from top Trumpworld figures including the president himself. He was replaced by Gen. John Kelly who was then replaced by Mick Mulvaney.Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) spent part of his Thursday in New Hampshire claiming victory from the still-unresolved caucus in Iowa four nights prior. But what was supposed to be a moment of triumph was complicated by a larger fear. The senator is on track to win the most votes when the count is said and done. But the number of voters who turned out in Iowa for all the candidates was lower than anticipated, prompting concerns about enthusiasm within the party. “I would have liked to have seen a higher turnout. And I think I can probably speak for every other candidate,” Sanders conceded to reporters who had packed into his Manchester headquarters on a chilly afternoon five days before the New Hampshire primary.Just one week ago, few Democrats would have anticipated that voter enthusiasm would be a worry for the party. Most public surveys have shown massive interest in voting. As recently as this spring, excitement about voting was matching the numbers recorded on the day before the 2016 election. For Democrats in particular, electoral participation seemed like a matter not worth worrying about. An overwhelming desire to oust President Donald Trump from office, the theory went, would prompt a record number of registrations and huge surges of activism. But data from the Iowa caucus has suddenly put those theories into doubt. Turnout was roughly around 2016 levels (around 175,000) but way off of the record set in 2008 (236,000), the last time the Democratic Party was running while a Republican was occupying the White House. And Sanders isn’t the only one noticing. “As a citizen, am I worried about it? Yeah. Especially after the explosive turnout of ’17 and ’18,” said David Axelrod, who helped spearhead the historic Barack Obama Iowa caucus win in 2008. “There are more benign explanations, like it is a caucus and the candidates were in Washington and not there to stir up the turnout. But there is another possibility, which is that people just felt dispirited. That’s a danger for Democrats. The Trump effort is infused with cynicism. And propagating cynicism can be a powerful tactic if you’re trying to depress an opponent’s turnout.” “That is a big concern,” he added, “that a dispirited electorate, beaten and burnt out, just walks away.”In interviews with activists and operatives throughout the party, reactions to the turnout in Iowa have ranged from alarm to nonchalance. But underneath it all is a belief that the party needs to ensure that the message it is conveying to voters is more than just disgust with Trump. Months of focus on impeachment ended this week not just with an acquittal but with conflicting party focuses: a national conversation centering on investigations into the president’s conduct, and the local campaigning that leaned into other matters. For a party that made historic gains in the 2017 and 2018 elections largely on an aggressive focus on protecting and expanding health care rights, it has been perplexing to some that such a message is no longer being uniformly amplified. “We had a real time experiment and it is called 2018, where we got really qualified people, diverse and patriotic, and they took a blood oath that they were going to talk about things that mattered to people,” said longtime Democratic operative James Carville. “And it produced the highest turnout in over 100 years and the biggest margin ever. To use a football metaphor, Why don’t we run the same play, coach? Let’s try that one again.”But not everyone in the party is sweating the Iowa results, arguing that it would be foolish to extrapolate larger trends from one election alone. Andrew Gillum, who has launched a voter-registration effort since his failed run for governor of Florida in 2018, noted that caucuses are historically low-turnout events and that Iowa as a whole has trended more Republican since Obama’s win there in 2008. “So of course there are fewer Democrats to attend a caucus in the first place,” said Gillum. “Sometimes a big field of candidates means a high turnout, but sometimes it means that voters are open to several candidates and ultimately just want to win and defeat Trump.”Addisu Demissie, Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-NJ) presidential campaign manager, noted that many caucus voters remained undecided until the very end, which inherently meant that they weren’t yet ready to make commitments to participate in the political process. “I think it’s a little early to chalk that up to lack of enthusiasm instead of paralysis by analysis,” said Demissie. “Talk to me after a couple primaries.”And Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who endorsed Sanders, also opted for a cautious approach: “We don’t have the detail to know exactly what that turnout looked like,” Jayapal told The Daily Beast. “I’m not taking any lessons from that yet, from Iowa.”But Iowa was supposed to provide some lessons in how to expand the universe of voters. Members of the Democratic Party undertook specific reforms after 2016 that were designed explicitly to encourage more turnout, including adding satellite caucuses, a key change approved by the Democratic National Committee after a vote by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. Early results show at least some success, with at least one major demographic: according to a Washington Post entrance poll, youth voters aged 17 to 29 made up 24 percent of total Iowa Democratic caucus-goers in 2020, a six-point increase from 18 percent in 2016. But that was a silver lining in a night otherwise marred by bureaucratic ineptitude and uninspiring turnout. “What should most concern us is that turnout might have barely kept pace with 2016 levels, and fell well below the historic turnout of 2008,” wrote former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who abandoned his own presidential run in 2019. “We’re in the middle of a national emergency, and people are staying home.”Adding to the sense of despair among Democrats is the fact that there was no clear winner from Iowa. Both Sanders and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg have claimed victory. But there were also reports of irregularities and inconsistencies with the ballots that could leave the results unclear for days or weeks. On Thursday afternoon, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called for a full recanvassing effort in Iowa. “Enough is enough,” Perez wrote on Twitter. “In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass.” Around the state, longtime Democrats’ responses were mixed when asked about whether the cloud over the Iowa results could potentially put a damper on turnout in New Hampshire. Some said they’d hardly thought about it. Others pointed to an upside—that is, having seen the mass chaos in Iowa, voters might feel more inclined to turn out and provide clarity through the primary process. Even some members of Congress acknowledged New Hampshire’s role in evaluating the overall early state turnout metrics. “I think a more fair way is to take a look after New Hampshire,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) told The Daily Beast. “It probably will give us a better idea of where some of the folks are coming out and if there’s any drop-off.”Sam Brodey contributed additional reporting. Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.