The Des Moines Register poll always issues a final Iowa poll right before the Iowa caucuses on Monday.

At least they always have for the last 76 years.

But they announced that this time, their CNN/Des Moines Register/Meidacom poll would not be released as was planned on Saturday night. They explained the reason was because “a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate” and they weren’t sure that it was isolated to one surveyor.

J. Ann Selzer, whose company conducts the Iowa Poll, said, “There were concerns about what could be an isolated incident. Because of the stellar reputation of the poll, and the wish to always be thought of that way, the heart-wrenching decision was made not to release the poll. The decision was made with the highest integrity in mind.”

#BREAKING: The Des Moines Register, CNN and Selzer & Co. have decided note to release the final installment of the #IowaPoll as planned this evening. https://t.co/tVi97cDFPX

— Des Moines Register (@DMRegister) February 2, 2020

Statement on the final installment of the CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll: pic.twitter.com/vIRpqMXKfQ

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) February 2, 2020

CNN also cancelled the hour programming they had scheduled to cover the poll.

Reports say the candidate left off was Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Uh-oh. “An Iowa supporter of Mr. Buttigieg received a poll phone call from an operator working for Ann Selzer, who runs the Register’s famed Iowa Poll, but the name of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was not listed on the menu of candidate options.” https://t.co/3vmVfU7fOS

— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) February 2, 2020

Polling expert Nate Cohn says he isn’t getting it.

As a technical matter, I don't really understand the ambiguity here. You program the questionnaire. His name would appear on all the computer screens of your interviewers. It would be fairly clear whether it was missed at one or all call centers? https://t.co/6OCKIt1jDD

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 2, 2020

If you look at the data and Pete doesn't show up at all, or he's missing from a whole set of data from a call center, then that's clear enough. But otherwise I don't really get how he would just occasionally not appear

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 2, 2020

Then you're left with the possibility that a Pete supporter remembered wrong. Seems possible. Or that an interviewer neglected to read the name, and their eyes skipped ahead accidentally. Also seems possible. But the possibility of measurement error always exists

— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 2, 2020

Some were not happy, particularly supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who thought there might be something more to it than a simple error or being overly scrupulous after the Buttigieg folks complained. Other recent polls had Sanders taking a lead over Joe Biden and the Sanders supporters thought perhaps that’s what the poll, if released, would have shown.

From Daily Wire:

Although the Des Moines Register abruptly pulled their poll Saturday night, after discovering that former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg may have been left off some questionnaires because of user error, both Monmouth and CBS News reported results in battleground tracker polls that put Sanders just one point ahead of Biden going into the final stretch.

According to CBS News/YouGov, Sanders has the support of 26% of likely caucus-goers, with Biden one point back at 25%. Buttigieg is also in the running for the lead at 22%, inside the poll’s 4% margin of error. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who once hoped for a win in Iowa to kick off an upstart campaign in early primary states, now trails well behind at 15%.

They canceled publication of an entire poll because a single pollster incorrectly asked a single question.

Yep, that's integrity all right.

Oh, wait. I just misspelled "Excuse for hiding a poll result they don't want revealed".

— Sharkman (@Sharkman1963) February 2, 2020

They dont want to show Bernie beating Biden.

— Moe Szyslak (@PubOperator) February 2, 2020

I have to say, it doesn't instill confidence that no one could figure out if this was an isolated problem with a degree of certainty. Why would anyone trust them in the future if they can't do it now? What are those "high standards" based on?

— love is the drug 🌹 (@eyemsimone) February 2, 2020

HT: Twitchy