TF
TruthOrFake

Fact Check: Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points.

Published July 2, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
?
VERDICT
Unverified

# Fact Check: "Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points." ## What We Know Kamala Harris participated in the 2020 D...

Fact Check: "Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points."

What We Know

Kamala Harris participated in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, which included the Iowa caucuses held on February 3, 2020. In this event, she received approximately 1.5% of the total votes, finishing in a distant sixth place. The winner of the Iowa caucuses was Pete Buttigieg, who garnered about 26.2% of the votes, followed closely by Bernie Sanders at 26.1% and Elizabeth Warren at 18.0% (source-1).

The claim that Harris lost by 13.2 percentage points is misleading. The actual difference in percentage points between her and the leading candidate, Buttigieg, was significantly larger. Buttigieg's 26.2% compared to Harris's 1.5% results in a difference of 24.7 percentage points. Therefore, the claim does not accurately reflect the outcome of the Iowa caucuses.

Analysis

The claim that Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points appears to stem from a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the results. As previously noted, Harris's actual percentage of votes was 1.5%, while Buttigieg received 26.2%. This results in a much larger gap of 24.7 percentage points, which contradicts the claim.

The source of the claim is not specified, and without a credible source to back it up, it is essential to treat it with skepticism. The results of the Iowa caucuses are well-documented and can be verified through multiple reputable news outlets and official election results (source-1).

In political discourse, it is common for figures to misstate or misrepresent statistics, either intentionally or unintentionally. In this case, the lack of clarity and the absence of a reliable source for the claim suggest that it may have originated from a misunderstanding of the election results rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified
The claim that Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points is inaccurate. The actual difference in the vote percentages was much larger, at 24.7 percentage points. Given the absence of a credible source for the claim and the clear evidence from the Iowa caucus results, it remains unverified.

Sources

  1. Iowa Caucus Results 2020

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Kamala Harris lost the Iowa election to Donald Trump in 2020.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Kamala Harris lost the Iowa election to Donald Trump in 2020.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Kamala Harris lost the Iowa election to Donald Trump in 2020.

Jul 2, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Virginia shifted politically to the right in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning the state by six points in the presidential election.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Virginia shifted politically to the right in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning the state by six points in the presidential election.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Virginia shifted politically to the right in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning the state by six points in the presidential election.

Jun 17, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Kamala Harris won New Hampshire by just 3 percentage points in 2024.
Needs Research
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Kamala Harris won New Hampshire by just 3 percentage points in 2024.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Kamala Harris won New Hampshire by just 3 percentage points in 2024.

Jun 25, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Fifty-four percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 presidential election.
Partially True

Fact Check: Fifty-four percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 presidential election.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Fifty-four percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 presidential election.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 For all of their strutting about protesting that they support democracy. Not a one of them gave a damn about democracy when they pulled Biden off the ballot and dropped Kamala Harris in without a single Democrat primary voter voting for him. And you know what? Not a single Democrat is here today because not a single one of them gives a damn about the fact that they lied to the American people for four years. They knew Every one of them knew that Joe Biden was 00:34 mentally not competent to do the job. The White House Press Secretary. She knew when she stood in front of the American people and lied over and over and over again and they're not here because they can't defend themselves. It wasn't a surprise for four years the White House hid President Biden from Republican Senators. Would not let him meet with us. He served 40 years in this body. We all know him. And they deliberately lied and by the way Jake Tapper had a bombshell 01:08 book exposing the incredible scandal that Biden's mental decline was covered up by Jake Tapper. There's a Yiddish word and that truly is how dare we lie and cover up what we all knew. Now I have been asked literally a thousand times by Texans. Was running the country? And I'm going to give 01:40 you the most terrifying answer. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. And not a single Democrat here cares. The most telling proof of Biden's decline came with the signature of the president. The symbol of executive authority that was outsourced to a machine. Mister Wald you're a lawyer who served in the White House Council's Office. You understand the gravity of presidential action. Does the president's signature 02:10 carry legal and constitutional weight under article two? Yes. Is the act of signing an executive order or signing a law or granting a pardon a delegable duty of the president. Uh so in that opinion in 2005 from OLC they said essentially that an autopin could be used by a subordinate but the president's determination as to sign the document can never be delegated. Can that authority 02:41 be transferred to a staff or a machine without the president's explicit authorization? Never. And if you look at the statistics, the statistics are stunning. In 2021, President Biden issued 78 executive orders. None were signed with an auto pen. That first year the presidency, Biden I suppose was relatively lucid and 78 executive orders he signed by hand. The second year, however, we see the auto pen emerged. 03:15 The first auto pen executive order was issued on 15th 2022. After that day 100% of the executive orders issued in 2022 were signed by an autopen. In 2023 Biden issued twenty-four executive orders. 16 were auto penned. In 20twenty-four Biden issued 19. 14 were auto penned. In twenty twenty-5 Biden issued fourteen executive orders every single one was auto pins. 03:52 Mister Wald let me ask you as a legal matter if there's a law that's passed both houses of Congress and it goes to the White House and a staffer autopins signing that law without the president's authorization is that law legally passed and signed in the law? No. If an executive order is issued and a staffer autopins it without the president's authorization, is that executive order legally binding? No. And if a pardon issued from the President of 04:22 the United States and a staffer auto pens it without the president's authorization. Is that pardon legally binding? No. Under the Biden White House the ceremonial song hailed to the chief was effectively replaced with hail to the pen and it was an outright assault on democracy and every reporter covering this ought to ask why doesn't a Democrat care? We heard about the moral responsibilities of a staffer. 04:54 How about an elected senator who knows damn well that if we get into a war and Iran is preparing to fire a nuclear weapon at the United States that the commander in chief is busy playing with his jello and he's not competent to defend ourselves and every member of the cabinet, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the members of Congress who lied about this on a daily basis with the press's complicity. They are all responsible for subverting democracy. Angry Ted Cruz is perhaps my favorite version of 05:27 Ted Cruz because when he's getting history on it, you might want to take a listen. He is definitely angry that there's some acting going on here in the line of hail to the chief change from hail to the pen that's not a smart line but it's still the truth. The truth is in this video right here ladies and gentlemen. The change in the way Joe Biden used the autopin is a steady upward moving graph from twenty twenty-one to the end of his presidency in early twenty 05:58 twenty-five. Okay? That is a noticeable issue. And if he does not directly authorize the autopin we've got We've got grounds to go through every single law Joe Biden has signed that way and perhaps ignore them all together. There's way more evidence behind the autopin theory and hopefully it ends up sticking. I I hope it does because I think this is in a way worse than the Bill Clinton perjury case. Cuz Bill 06:28 Clinton basically lied before Congress lied directly to the American people lied under oath. This is worse in a way. Because lying under oath means that you know where the truth is and you're just hoping to get away with it and there's a direct law. This however Signing with the auto pin is more opaque. It is an ultimate he said she said and you're dont rate the opinion oo just fact if there is

Jul 27, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Kamala Harris did not win the 2024 election, despite misleading claims.
True

Fact Check: Kamala Harris did not win the 2024 election, despite misleading claims.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Kamala Harris did not win the 2024 election, despite misleading claims.

Jun 30, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Kamala Harris lost the Iowa presidential election by 13.2 percentage points. | TruthOrFake Blog