Bernie Sanders wants raw vote count released after tight finish in Iowa caucuses

[Gregorian]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/02/bernie-sanders-requests-vote-count-tight-finish-iowa-caucus-clinton

Bernie Sanders has called on the Democratic party to release a raw vote count in Iowa after a nail-biting finish left lingering doubts over the first, much tighter-than-expected, clash with Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.

He threw little light on an unfolding controversy over certain Iowa precincts that did not have enough Democratic party volunteers to report delegate totals for each candidate but did call on officials to take the unusual step of revealing underlying voter totals. Delegates are awarded in the Iowa Democratic contest on a precinct-by-precinct basis, irrespective of the state-wide vote for each candidate.

[NowSam]

1. Good for Bernie

Fighter. The people deserve some answers on what really happened in Iowa.

[nc4bo]

2. Lesson of a lifetime - Question everything. nt.

“This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adherent to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiments and observations. Build on those ideas that pass the test. Reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours.”

...that is all.

[Jenny_92808]

3. I agree that the count should be

checked to ensure there was no funny business going on. Our votes should be protected.

[Hoyt]

4. Democrats have not traditionally released raw vote. This is just more Sanders BS, unless the

raw vote was released in 2008 and prior years. If so, I'll take it back.

The whining, conspiracy theories like coin tosses, excuses, Sanders won by losing, Sanders' staff didn't steal Clinton's campaign data it was there for the taking, calling good Democrats the establishment or worse, etc., have gotten really old.

I will not be surprised if before it's over, Sanders -- or at least his supporters -- rationalize an independent run despite his saying he won't do it. It's easy to say, I was treated unfairly, so all bets are off.

[Gregorian]

5. Just because it's always been so doesn't make it right for today.

Information is important. And it surprises me that after what this country has been through with election troubles, we would still be doing this. This should be an open system.

[Hoyt]

6. If he couldn't play by the rules, he shouldn't have participated. That'd show em.

[morningfog]

8. What are you talking about?

What do you even mean "if he couldn't play by the rules?"

[GoneFishin]

48. Evidently "playing by the rules" means not verifying that everyone is "playing by the rules"???

[2banon]

33. weirdest comments I've read all day

completely nonsensical.

[NowSam]

12. Exactly! Show us the numbers

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. There are serious questions about the legitimacy of the tallies and why wouldn't we all want to see the results. What's the big secret anyway? There sure is a lot of "Nope" instead of hope around here. We deserve transparency in our elections.

Rules are rules. Yes indeed but when the will of the people may not have been served in an election for the future course of the world than there needs to be a liberal flexibility in these rules and let us see the numbers.

[yeoman6987]

51. How much more open can it be with Bernie and Hillary supporters counting and agreeing with

said count.

[morningfog]

7. It hasn't been this close. Only 700 votes separate them.

If the Party has the raw data, why not release it?

[Hoyt]

10. Because it will just encourage more Sanders BS and whining. It hasn't been done in past.

If he thinks it should be released in the future, let him drop a note in the suggestion box.

[morningfog]

14. When was the last caucus with 700 vote difference?

What mechanism is in place to verify results?

He's not claiming a nefarious conspiracy, simply asking for the verification.

Again, if the Party has therapy votes, why not verify the results under these unusual circumstances?

[Hoyt]

15. Nope, he's just being a pain. Sorry, just the opinion of a grumpy old man, myself.

[Ned_Devine]

36. Nothing to see here. Move along, whiners

[GoneFishin]

49. Never mind the man behind the curtain.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

11. At least you can hang your hat on the fact that Gore and Kerry didn't whine

Good on Bernie!

[Dragonfli]

29. Are you afraid of learning the answer? Perhaps it will show the hidden Hillary landslide

It has never been so close as to be changed by such a small number, that is one good reason for a count that may not be typical, a rather obvious one at that, I am surprised you would miss such an obvious thing.
There were also many shall we politely say "strange" behaviors by Hillary people involved in counting posted all over the place locally.

You should be screaming for a better count, it would prove that she is not so vulnerable as it now appears and there were many, many more caucus goers on her side of the fence then reported according to your rather consistent world view.

[Hoyt]

52. There was no Clinton landslide, but she's still standing after an caucus made for Sanders.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. This man is really putting us first.

These recounts are the only way to restore our trust in the system. I fully support him.

[Hoyt]

13. You think there was a conspiracy. Maybe some of the "unbiased" caucus officials who posted on DU

that they were headed to the caucuses and were for Sanders, could tell us how he was cheated while they were standing there.

[morningfog]

16. What conspiracy? It was so close that clerical errors could

have affected the outcome. Recounts are not uncommon when elections results are this close.

Why be afraid of democracy?

[winter is coming]

18. ^^ This. It doesn't hurt to check.

If there are errors, they can be corrected. If not, confidence in the process is confirmed.

[Hoyt]

20. Might have gone Clinton's way.

[morningfog]

23. Yeah, and it might not of.

[Hoyt]

25. In this case it makes Democrats and Sanders look petty. Sorry.

[morningfog]

26. It would not look petty if/when the delegate allocation

is such that pledged delegates were so close that the nomination turned on super delegates. In a contest of grabbing and counting every delegate possible, it could matter quite a bit.

Admittedly we are a long way from that even being a possibility, but stranger things have happened.

It this were a general election vote, would you accept an estimated 700 vote differential without seeing some verification of actual numbers?

Would you accept it if the difference were less than a hundred?

[Hoyt]

27. However you spin it, it's petty.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. Nothing wrong with authenticating the results.

Methinks doth protest too much.

[Hoyt]

21. Me thinks some folks are just poor losers, or too darn suspicious.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. I have the Florida 2000 dispensation.

I remember a time when Democratic candidates thought that they had to concede for the good of the country. That kind of thinking turns you into a casualty.

[Hoyt]

24. In this particular case, it makes Democrats look petty, IMO.

[Hiraeth]

31. Only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. sheesh.

[Ned_Devine]

39. This dude just repeats himself...oh, and he doesn't like whiners

[Hiraeth]

44. he needs to go back and read what he has posted in this thread then.

Cos (to me) he comes across as the biggest whiner in the thread

[Ned_Devine]

47. Shhh! The irony you've uncovered could get you an alert

[Geronimoe]

34. Well Al Gore simply accepted losing, although he won

It is better to have a fighter in a President than a wuss.

[Baitball Blogger]

53. Exactly.

You have to be made out of tough stuff and show you're willing to question any process that may show signs of being gamed. The integrity of fair play was comprised a long time ago and, if you're not proactive about these things people will take advantage.

[2banon]

35. me thinks you don't *think* at all.

[CharlotteVale]

19. Good for Bernie. He and we have a right to know.

[2banon]

28. I rec'd this thread but I think it's a pointless excersize for Bernie

they're NEVER going to give him the actual vote counts. And we all KNOW why.

[Hiraeth]

46. The Fact that he knows his rights to demand for a recount is point enough for me.

[2banon]

54. good point, there's something to be said there.

Especially after witnessing our "guy" conceding on two general elections giving it over the to the repukes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Good. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

32. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Gregorian.

[retrowire]

37. Andy McGuire already said "no." nt

[winter is coming]

40. The one with the "HILL2016" license plate?

Yeah, I'm sure she's got no dog in this fight.

[retrowire]

41. yep, the very same one. :/ nt

[ucrdem]

38. He really needs to be gracious and move on.

He's been in how many campaigns again? He knows this perfectly well. Which makes me wonder again what his purposes really are.

[retrowire]

42. Al Gore laid down and took what they told him

we got bush.

Bernie doesn't lay down. either way, this benefits the people. this is admittedly inaccurate.

[ucrdem]

45. It's a caucus. Practically a straw poll. Not an election with recountable ballots.

Going to law over the Iowa caucus is an utterly dumb move.

[winter is coming]

43. If the margin were 5%, I'd agree with you. Less than half a percent?

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

There are states where that triggers an automatic recount. There's nothing ungracious about wanting to double-check the results when it's that close. And it's a double-edged sword. A recount might end up giving Hillary more delegates. If that's a risk the Sanders campaign wants to take, why not?

[GoneFishin]

50. Evidently the HRC supporters are nervous that HRC received some unearned delegates. They

seem pretty belligerent in their insistence that the numbers not be verified by someone objective.