Something smells in the Democratic Party

[Pryderi]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.

Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no. She said the three campaigns had representatives in a room in the hours after the caucuses and went over the discrepancies.

[Live and Learn]

1. K&R nt

[aspirant]

2. Legal action, "Remember the Alamo" or DNC.

Who were the 3 people in the room, names please.

[tecelote]

3. Once again we ask... why not be transparent? What could be wrong with verifying the results?

"What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy."

[ErisDiscordia]

5. It reeks of corruption and arrogance

[HereSince1628]

57. Or maybe it's something else... like trying to protect reputations

Going into protection mode when a threat is perceived is human nature. IMO there can be resistance to the audit without there being corruption.

The caucus in Iowa operates simply with at least a veneer of innocence and not a little bit of good will relying on volunteers to get counting and reporting done correctly, and in a manner that would make audits/recounts of a result possible.

Of course, such a narrow result is going to have people concerned and wanting to double check the arithmetic. There are many municipalities and states that require recounts for much larger winning margins. Our experience outside the caucus process says calling for recount is reasonable.

But honestly, we've got to recognize that double checking exposes the process to scrutiny. It's not typically done. Honest, accurate results are presumed and the call for audit/recount brings that into question. That's threatening to people who want to process to be seen as iconic of grassroots democracy at its best, rather than riddled with amateurish mistakes of volunteers.

[ErisDiscordia]

80. If the purpose is reputation protection, it isn't working

Quite the opposite, in fact.

[HereSince1628]

92. Yes, all true, but that's also following basic forces of human nature.

Conflicts typically result because both sides feel justified, even if neither is wholly correct. The reality of conflict is it's typically not a clash of good vs evil.

Diplomacy is a gambit it trys to resolve problems without damaging confrontations. It often fails and unfortunately it's commonly a choice of last resort.

The more threatening outside forces are to the Iowa Democratic party, the more you can expect them to take on a defensive posture.

The harder Sander's Campaign pushes on this, the more it will be argued it's iconic of his personality...making a great big deal out of nothing. Conflict can make that perception grow into something that it's not.

Yes one campaign wants to turn a tie into a landslide. Why not let that reflection display a flaw in that candidate's/opponent's personality?

Running -as- a flawed candidate is different than running -against- a flawed candidate.

Diplomacy as a gambit is also the art of allowing your opponent's organization to hurt itself.

[chervilant]

100. Wow. Sure took

a lot of words to substantiate your position.

I find it interesting that a simple request to verify results is perceived to be "threatening" or a "conflict."

Hi11ary's premature and arrogant claim that she "won" Iowa strongly suggests an "expectation" likely grounded in some kind of sneaky political shenanigans. It appears that's the way she rolls, regardless of what actually happened.

[jham123]

103. Agree!!

...and upon that agreement with everything you said, I'd starting to ferret out who works for the DNC on this board...

[NowSam]

104. Agree

Well said. This is why people don't trust HRC - well that and her constant flip flopping on issue after issue.

[pnwmom]

6. Fundamentally, there is no way to verify anything since there were no paper ballots.

Just head-counting of thousands of moving heads.

And the counts mean very little, because a delegate in one precinct could represent 10 voters, and a delegate in another precinct could represent 50. One-person-one-vote doesn't exist in caucuses. Some voters matter a lot more than others.

The time to thrash out changes to the party caucus rules was BEFORE the caucuses. Where were the Bernie people then?

I think they got cocky because Obama did so well in the caucuses, and they thought they'd get Obama's turnout. They didn't, and Hillary had strength all over the state -- not just in a few college towns, like Bernie.

I hate our state caucuses and I predicted that everyone here would soon hate them too, before this was over. There's nothing that can be done about Iowa. People should take this energy and use it to push all states that have caucuses to switch to primaries.

[winter is coming]

65. An inability to recount people is no reason to not be transparent about the work documents

that do exist. When the margin is this narrow, it's not unreasonable to want to see tally sheets, and odd that the state party wouldn't want to be transparent. Especially when the person saying "no" has an obvious conflict of interest. Even the Des Moines Register, which endorsed Clinton, is calling for the raw data to be released. They, at least, understand that secrecy about this hurts the party's image.

[pnwmom]

81. Those work documents would prove NOTHING about the underlying

vote count, which was done by counting heads. Even if you saw an apparent discrepancy, you couldn't resolve it because there are no ballots to recount.

Bernie isn't calling for a recount. Just some of his crazed supporters.


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-challenge-caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State.

[winter is coming]

84. No, if you saw an apparent discrepancy, you'd go with the counts on your work documents,

not with data entry you'd done from them. Those documents represent the best information we have with respect to the counts. If the numbers entered into the app differ, that's an error. If the calculations done from the raw vote totals are incorrect, that's an error.

No one's trying to recount anyone, and it's dishonest to say, "Well, we can't recount people, so there's nothing to be done." No one's trying to recount people. All they want to know is whether the recorded results are an accurate reflection of the raw data.

[pnwmom]

114. The Bernie campaign has already said they're not pursuing this.

[questionseverything]

115. as Americans we have the right to oversee every phase of our elections

wether it is seeing the math party insiders used or election officials use later

if it is not transparent, it is not legitimate

show us the math!

[pnwmom]

117. Actually not. That's another problem with caucuses.

The courts in my state have ruled that the caucuses are party business, unlike the primaries, which are run by the state.

And since they are party business, they can be run however the party wants to run them.

It's the same way in Iowa that it is in WA, where I live.

One more reason we should all switch to primaries.

[questionseverything]

118. i went to bed on caucus night with the party reporting 21-21

i woke up and saw the party reporting 23-21 , even tho we know bernie won several outstanding precincts

if the party just arbitrarily awarded hc the last 2 delegates because they can.....then they need to say that

since they will not show the math i am guessing that is exactly what happened

[pnwmom]

119. 21 - 21 was never an official final count. The AP explained why the final count was 23 to 21,

after the final precinct result came in.

FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_2016_ELECTION_RACE_CALL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Q: If Clinton won the caucuses, why didn't she get all the delegates?

A: It's not winner take all.

Iowa Democrats award delegates proportionally, based on the statewide vote and the vote in individual congressional districts. Clinton won two more delegates than Sanders - the tally was 23-21 - even though the vote was very close to a tie. That is because she got the most votes in one congressional district. Seven delegates were at stake in the Third District; she won 4, he won 3.

Also, a pot of 9 delegates was awarded based on the statewide vote. By narrowly winning the statewide vote, Clinton got 5 and Sanders got 4.

---

Q: So, what's the delegate count heading into New Hampshire?

A: Clinton has a big lead, thanks to the party establishment.

Party officials known as superdelegates can support the candidate of their choice. When superdelegates are counted, Clinton has a total of 385 delegates and Sanders only has 29. More than half of the party's superdelegates have decided whom to support - though they can always change their minds.

It takes 2,382 delegates to win the Democratic nomination for president.

[questionseverything]

120. great...when the dem party of iowa shows us the numbers

we will double check the math

easy peesey

i do not want to get into the super delegates....they will either follow the peoples' will or will ruin the party forever

[pnwmom]

122. You've heard all you're going to hear from the party. n/t

[questionseverything]

123. then they deserve to lose their first in the nation place

we will see what we see

[pnwmom]

124. Totally agree. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

97. Are you correct about there being no 'one person, one vote' in the Iowa caucauses? I think

that is fundamentally wrong and anti-democratic (emphasis on the lower-case 'd').

Do you live in Iowa?

[brooklynite]

16. Every tally was public with every standing in the room.

[tecelote]

33. Then the Des Moines Register article has no merit?

Nothing to see here, move along.

[brooklynite]

35. I don't dispute that the Sanders campaign is complaining...

...I'm still not clear what they're complaining about.

[RiverLover]

39. Right? It isn't clear at all.

[brooklynite]

47. Show me the timepoint where the Sanders Precinct Captain complains...

She's the woman right in front....

[workinclasszero]

61. Fox Resorts To Bogus "Voter Fraud" Claims To Downplay Clinton Caucus Victory

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/03/fox-resorts-to-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-to-down/208352

This is a FOX NEWS operation trying to help Bernie Sanders beat Hillary

Gee I wonder why??????

[dorkzilla]

64. So funny how anything said against Hillary is painted as a Right Wing Attack

FFS - the same footage was on CSPAN and I’m sure others as well.

[workinclasszero]

69. It is a RIGHT WING attack!

Are you saying I made that up?

There is actual video on the link I provided.

FOX & FRIENDS then aired video from Des Moines Democratic Precinct No. 43 of three apparent supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) questioning Clinton's vote total after a second count of voters.

In scandalizing the multiple voter counts, Nauert misunderstands the mechanism by which voters are counted at Democratic precincts.

FOX NEWS also deceptively chose which portion of video from the precinct site to air, focusing only on the complaints of three voters. FOX NEWS did not air the caucus chair explaining that it was extremely unlikely that a further recount of voters would change the delegate apportionment from Precinct No. 43. FOX NEWS also failed to air the caucusgoers' vote on whether an additional recount was needed.

According to full video available online, the vast majority of Sanders supporters joined Clinton supporters in declining to recount.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/03/fox-resorts-to-bogus-voter-fraud-claims-to-down/208352

[dorkzilla]

73. I didn’t say you made it up, I said other outlets have shown that video

Also, the Media Matters-David Brock-HRC relationship is one that makes me question their bias. Please find a more neutral source.

[workinclasszero]

82. Media Matters

Has been fighting the right wing lie machine for years! You would actually take FOX NEWS word over Media Matters?????



If Bernie gets the nomination we will see how much you like FOX NEWS then when they unleash hell on BS 24/7!!

I've got nothing more to say to a FOX NEWS lover. You people have lost your minds!

Ignored.

[dorkzilla]

113. Ah, that's right, I question a source and I'm a Fox fangirl

Oooh, you really caught me out there!! Such a simple deduction I'm surprised nobody has caught on before! I bow to your powers of sleuthing. How can I remain here when such a formidable intellect as yourself has blown my cover?

[Betty Karlson]

71. Any criticism of Clinton must come from the right?

Boy, are you disconnected from reality!

[dorkzilla]

41. What would be the big deal to have everyone compare notes?

It’s not like the margin of her “win” (LOL) was so great that it wouldn’t warrant a closer look. The 2012 Iowa GOP winner was initially called wrong, is it entirely out of the realm of possible that mistakes were made here?

If the shoe were on the other foot, Bernie would be the first one to say it ought to be recounted because it was SO close.

[tecelote]

60. Bernie would be the first one to say ...

"If the shoe were on the other foot, Bernie would be the first one to say it ought to be recounted because it was SO close."

Absolutely. Great point.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

111. It's not an article.

It's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces rarely have much merit.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. Exactly! What's wrong with verification of results. Any one think

Hillary wouldn't be demanding the same if the situation were reversed?

[pnwmom]

4. All of this was supposed to be hashed out while the three campaigns were in the room

together with the party representatives.

They had their chance. Stick a fork in it. That caucus is done.

[Fearless]

11. What's the harm?

[pnwmom]

18. No harm. Just not possible. They voted with their feet, not with paper.

And then the caucus leaders tapped their "state delegate equivalents" into their phones. And all the results were gone over with the three campaigns.

This is how the Dems do it in Iowa. I warned everybody here that they'd hate caucuses, once they knew more about them. Every state should switch to primaries and this is part of the reason.

The Bernie campaign KNOWS this can't be reconstructed. They're just making a fuss for the publicity. To leave the impression that the party and Hillary colluded and that Hillary didn't really win.

But she did, 23 to 21.

That's all we'll ever know.

Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-challenge-caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

[Fearless]

125. Still not seeing harm in seeing the data trail.

[pnwmom]

127. You're assuming there's a data trail that exists. nt

[Fearless]

128. There is actually.

Hard numbers in each precinct, hard numbers overall. What's the harm?

[restorefreedom]

32. reason number 6,243 why caucuses suck. nt

[pnwmom]

37. Absolutely. I don't know why anyone thought this one would be the exception. n/t

[restorefreedom]

40. now going to see how many other states are caucus

of course, other states might be more organized, but that doesn't change the disenfranchisement issue.

ugh. eight more to go.

[pnwmom]

43. Right. How many wheelchairs did we see at that caucus?

[restorefreedom]

46. seven more states plus dc. and no i saw no wheelchairs,

oxygen tanks, or crutches. not to mention the people who work a bazillion hours, work evenings, are caregivers, or any of the thousand other reasons a primary or absentee ballot would be appropriate.

[pnwmom]

48. I am dreading going to ours and my husband hates the idea even more

than I do. I hate that our party insisted on keeping them after we passed a referendum to have primaries. The Repubs actually have done the better thing for once.

[restorefreedom]

85. it seems that with primaries and the nom process, the repubs

are more democratic than the dems..who wouldda thought?

good luck when you go to yours....

[Uponthegears]

59. I'm surprised

you didn't include this legal citation:

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)"

[pnwmom]

79. Why? Caucuses are party events, not government events. n/t

[kristopher]

77. Sanders camp tried and the DNC rep brushed them off and told them to bring it up later.

[wyldwolf]

7. Of course

Bernie loses, it has to be because of something other than he didn't win.

[smiley]

12. no...

Hillary and her camp simply shouldn't be trusted.

[peacebird]

8. Kick

Hillary should support this, if she doesn't it will raise even more suspicions

[pnwmom]

38. There are no ballots to count, nothing to support.

This is just a lot of hot air from the Sanders campaign because they're known this all along.

The time to bring up changes to the caucus system was last spring, when he began his run. Everyone knows how Iowa does its caucuses. This is just typical.

[Blanks]

51. ...and counts for very little in the long run. eom

[jonestonesusa]

93. Agreed. Dems let two elections get stolen.

2000 and 2004. Black voters disenfranchised on a grand scale, Gore and Kerry couldn't be bothered to fully investigate. Under the bus go the black voters and liberals too, until the next election. Rinse, repeat, hello Hillary!

[Ford_Prefect]

9. Every time this was brought up at DU we are told that is the way the caucus cookie crumbles.

"Get over it" they like to say. "There's no proof either way and no reliable evidence to the contrary". "We never released that kind of data and we won't now".

So what was all that noise about MS phone apps for counting and reporting the caucus vote results? What happened to all the field notes taken by those overseeing the caucus locations? Why does the party leadership object so strongly to doing due diligence? There were reasonable questions raised on the night about correct and complete counts and the next morning there were still the same questions along with more specific evidence that there might be errors.

The Sanders campaign went to great lengths to track the voting at each location and has presented more than enough reasonable evidence that the details and field notes of the count should be reviewed. Must there be a divisive law suit over the count to prove that it is (or is not) correct and complete. Is it not the responsibility of the Chairwoman to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the count is indeed correct, and to show proofs that this is true so that all Iowans and Americans may continue to have faith in the party and the voters it represents?

Bad enough that we anticipate needing to recount when the GOP controls the voting process. Must we now also anticipate that the Democratic party must be ready and required to do likewise, and for its own primaries?
When the Democratic leadership acts like a company with something to hide and then denies the evidence it suggests that those who worry that Wall Street controls the process and the party leadership might just be onto something.

[pnwmom]

19. And what about this?

Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-challenge-caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

[Ford_Prefect]

30. How does this refute my observations? The party refused to examine the record which you insist

does not exist. If the Sanders campaign made a tactical decision not to challenge that doesn't alter the data, or the reported discrepancies, nor the arrogant denial by the Party Chair.

We have seen the evidence along the way of the tilt by party leadership against Sanders and those of us traditional Democrats who recall enough of the New Deal and Great Society to know the how great the party should be. You have no place to speak down to us.

You have chosen your candidate.

Now you need to accept that we disagree with the way her surrogates in the party leadership want to spin the election. As party members it is our right and duty to bring attention to those actions the party takes that we feel are inappropriate in one way or another.

[chervilant]

56. This:

When the Democratic leadership acts like a company with something to hide and then denies the evidence it suggests that those who worry that Wall Street controls the process and the party leadership might just be onto something.

When Hi11ary declared that night with such a slim margin and not all the votes counted, I knew right then.

I am disgusted with her campaign, and cannot imagine that she'll prevail if she becomes our nominee. I don't know if I can survive the hellish Republicans for another four to eight years.

[MissDeeds]

83. I agree

"When Hi11ary declared that night with such a slim margin and not all the votes counted, I knew right then."

Why was she so sure she'd won with the count so close and not all the results not yet in?

[MrMickeysMom]

10. Whatever will we do here with my county's iVotronics machines?

We HAVE no paper trail with electronic voting. I already see how easy it is to manipulate.

The ONLY way to monitor this is a large presence precinct by precinct. Poll watcher needed everywhere!

[Ed Suspicious]

13. I was more worried about the primary voting states because

the caucus in Iowa is a head count and everybody can see the heads. If they have the balls to game a public count, I have zero reason to believe in the computer tallied votes of a private voting state.

Treaonous bastards who help rig elections deserve prison.

[PonyUp]

24. And THIS is just the start of the primaries. It's going to get uglier. nt

[Enthusiast]

14. I fully expected this bullshit. Anywhere the polls are close enough there will be subterfuge.

Think Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.

One would think people would embrace the side of right.

[madokie]

15. Dug in her heals and said NO makes me want to scream YES

Lets do this.
Paper ballots hand counted for anything elections is the only sure thing

[Ed Suspicious]

21. This. I was actually naive enough to accept the results with a few minor quibbles. Stuff happens, I

guess. But when they protest so much it sets off warning bells like crazy in me.

[madokie]

31. Yup me too

Your sig lines says it all. All that needs be said about Bernie anyway. IMO

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. YES!

[Fumesucker]

17. Video cameras are in everyone's hands now, everything gets digitally recorded

An app which automatically sends video of an election event to secure servers, every word, every gesture, every number from multiple points of view.

[newfie11]

29. Agreed 100%!!!!!

what the hell AMERICA!!! We can't even have an honest election in this country?

Looks like we are closer to becoming a third world country than I knew!!!

[Fumesucker]

20. The Clinton entourage skedaddling off tight lipped to New Hampshire now makes a bit more sense

[CharlotteVale]

22. It stinks to high heaven when they refuse transparency.

[stonecutter357]

23. .

[Ed Suspicious]

28. Hillarious.

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. What's so damn funny?

[newfie11]

25. Omg!

This stinks to high heaven! If there's not a problem why wouldn't they release it?
Obviously there is something they don't want seen!
It sucks when you can't get a fair vote even with your own party.

[Helen Borg]

26. And what is happening with the investigation about

firewallgate?

[Helen Borg]

27. Seems more likely to me that ...

The veterans in this process would be more able and likely to exploit it. You know, people who may have voted for a certain candidate in the past and all?

[restorefreedom]

34. has the hillary campaign considered

the possibility that verification could increase her numbers? but since her friend kathryn harris ----- er, andy mcguire fixed it for her, we might never know.

bernie needs to prestage people NOW in primary states to keep a close watch on results. this is not the end, but only the beginning of a long ugly slog.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. FYI.

On Thu Feb 4, 2016, 07:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

has the hillary campaign considered
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1136774

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Allegation that the vote was "fixed" without any evidence provided.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 4, 2016, 07:38 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary supporter here. I think most DUers recognize this as typical post-caucus bluster.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? Please use your words rather than the alert button.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post talks about possibility, not proof.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The insinuations here violate our rules

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[restorefreedom]

87. oh brother. thx for posting. nt

[Iggy Knorr]

96. Lordy Them Violating Insinuations

Where are my pearls (tm)

[restorefreedom]

98. i will grab the smelling salts lol! nt

[pnwmom]

50. You can't verify head-counting movable heads. n/t

[restorefreedom]

89. i read somewhere that the party head at each location

keeps a paper tally of the head count data. not that it is super accurate with people moving sround and all, but is there no info at all after the fact? what are these references to raw data mean?

but in any case, even with a paper backup, time for primaries.....

[winter is coming]

55. +1. It's what happened the first time Al Franken was elected to the Senate.

.His opponent insisted on a recount, and Franken's margin of victory got larger, not smaller.

[restorefreedom]

88. anything could happen, and since hillary was clearly

disappointed by the virtual tie, i am surprised the campaign is not pushing this. unless they fewr that it would tip even more to bernie.


juries...note i said "fear"

[RiverLover]

36. If there are inconsistencies & the Iowa DNC won't look into the problem, you have to wonder

if this whole thing is rigged.

[NurseJackie]

42. Maybe Ma & Pa Kettle can help with the counting ... :-P

[pnwmom]

44. That's strange since the Sanders campaign announced they weren't going to dispute

the outcome. Are they flip-flopping?



http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/02/bernie-sanders-challenge-caucus-results-hillary-clinton-wins-iowa.html

Sanders campaign senior campaign adviser Tad Devine has told the AP that the Sanders campaign has no interest in challenging the caucus results in Iowa, which means that Hillary Clinton has officially won the Hawkeye State.

[TheBlackAdder]

45. Iowa must be one Effed Up state. Remember Romney won, then Santorum? Perhaps IA Dems no better!

.


Everybody laughed at how screwed up the IA Republicans were, that they couldn't even count.


Perhaps the same issues are going on in the Democrats camp, and they want to hide it.


.

[pnwmom]

52. Don't mock them, they at least use paper ballots. Unlike the Dems,

which never do.

[Politicub]

53. Par for the sorry Sanders course

If the Bernie bros don't like it, they'll attack and throw insults until they run everyone out of the house.

[Fumesucker]

63. Concede Florida Al

[Politicub]

109. It's no different

Yell until your opponent is intimidated.

Good thing Hillary knows how to push back.

[stonecutter357]

86. +1

[Sienna86]

58. "HRC 2016" is McGuire's license plate

does that indicate a bias?

[Ford_Prefect]

70. You bet your sweet bippy it does..

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. I think it does.

[Betty Karlson]

66. Oww, Debbie just can't help herself can she? She can only help Hillary. eom

[Nitram]

67. Is is very dishonest of Bernie and his campaign to imply the results can be verified.

He knows perfectly well how the Iowa caucus system works. Everyone was there to make sure the results were reported correctly. There were no paper ballots.

[winter is coming]

75. It's very dishonest to claim that's what they're looking for, when they clearly state that

they want to check the paperwork sent back to the party. What they're trying to see is whether the final results were correctly derived from the raw count. Calculation and data entries happen. When the margin is this close, we should be sure that the errors made aren't significant to the outcome.

[Vinca]

68. They need to be transparent unless they want an exodus from the party.

It wouldn't break my heart to register as an Independent.

[Betty Karlson]

72. Maybe that's what Debbie wants? eom

[mountain grammy]

76. I think the Sanders campaign should move on

and not spend another dime in Iowa. Dems have enthusiastically supported Bernie and he won delegates. The thugs went for Cruz. Enough about Iowa. Move on.

[randome]

90. Maybe Sanders shouldn't have used his own software.

Sure, that's going to give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on but different software that may not be as accurate or timely as what everyone else was using could be the source of his problems.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[winter is coming]

91. Maybe he does have buggy software. Or maybe the state does. Or both do.

If the party releases the raw totals, we should be able to figure that out.

[randome]

94. I understand why recounts are approached with caution, though.

It's like the reluctance of a hospital to do a full-body scan (something I learned from 'House'). If you go looking for everything, you're bound to think there are problems where there really are none.

I would think it's the same with recounts. Something odd may turn up that is actually nothing at all, yet one group or the other will latch onto it to promote a conspiracy theory.

Obviously sometimes a recount is absolutely essential but if there is no evidence that the results would change, then maybe it's not worth the time and effort. Just a thought, that's all. In a state with tens of thousands of people voting for delegates, there will always be irregularities. The question to ask is if these irregularities rise to the level where a recount is needed.

Obviously the 'loser' of a close contest may think so. But I personally would need to see some evidence or a plausible theory rather than simply "they must have cheated".
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[winter is coming]

102. Given the razor-thin margin, I think a recount should be done, because

there are almost certainly mistakes here and there in the reporting--transposed numbers, bad math, etc. The vast majority of the time, elections aren't close enough for it to be worth fussing over fixing every mistake. This time they are. You don't have to assume ill will to want to double-check the results.

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. AGAIN, file a lawsuit.

If this is how the establishment want to play, sue them for access.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[RiverLover]

108. I agree. /nt

[UglyGreed]

99. Come on

if you have nothing to hide let have some transparency......

[NowSam]

101. "NO" = "Afraid of examination overturning a too close to count caucus"

There is no good reason not release and compare the data.

Does the integrity of the vote not matter? Who are we and what have we become if we don't insist on integrity of the vote!

[Pisces]

105. Ridiculous, if this was a stolen election it would have been by a much wider margin.

[Uncle Joe]

106. The Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary, so if they're calling for a recount, that should carry

some measure of extra credibility with Hillary supporters, aside from the logic of the argument itself.

The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.

(snip)


Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

Thanks for the thread, Pryderi.

[KoKo]

107. Good points....

[NCTraveler]

110. I'm smelling a damn good chance...

To hold the executive branch for a minimum of twelve years. Smells like roses.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

112. Opinion pieces touted as fact.

Only on DU.

[AtomicKitten]

116. There was a time Democrats supported open and FAIR elections.

[RobertEarl]

121. H looks like she knows she lost

Otherwise she'd be upfront with a "Let's clear this up" statement.

[PatrickforO]

126. I think Clinton cheated and I think Dr. McGuire helped her do it.

Too many reports of strange things, like people being told to leave early. Take the bastards to court.