"What we can’t stomach is even the whiff of impropriety or error" Des Moines Register.

[madfloridian]

This newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton. They are proud of their state caucus, and this article shows that. They can not tolerate that "something smells" in the Democratic party caucus count.

Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party

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.

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.

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.

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.

The article points out that Andy McGuire, Iowa Party chair, doesn't want to discuss, compare, or analyze.

McGuire knows what’s at stake. Her actions only confirm the suspicions, wild as they might be, of Sanders supporters. Their candidate, after all, is opposed by the party establishment — and wasn’t even a Democrat a few months ago.

The article calls for a balance between tradition and transparency.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Here's the takeaway--if the IDP refuses to audit its own findings, then you have to wonder

if some intentional funny business went on.

[lovuian]

4. You do have to wonder

if the paper and microsoft app don't match up .....what happened so it can be corrected

[jeff47]

6. Most likely, typos.

We are talking about humans doing data entry. Innocent mistakes happen. The correction is to go with the most "raw" data we have, which is on those math sheets.

[Helen Borg]

57. "innocent" mistakes when there is an obvious benefit to be had

Tend to happen in the direction that benefits the person making the typo.

[jeff47]

58. Possibly. And an audit would reveal whether or not the mistakes favored one candidate. (nt)

[NowSam]

15. Exactly.

The integrity of our voting system and the public trust is being abused.

[TwilightGardener]

16. This is a Dem party-run thing--who watches the party for integrity?

"Trust us", is their final word.

[CoffeeCat]

36. The head of Iowa Democratic Party is a Clinton supporter, fund-raiser and former campaign co-chair

Andy McGuire, the chairperson of the Iowa Democratic Party, is the person who is unilaterally preventing any examination of the caucus results. Here are some facts about Andy McGuire:

McGuire’s license plate on her Buick Enclave says “HRC 2016,” as in “Hillary Rodham Clinton.” (Source: “Clinton makes just one excruciating’ Iowa mention,” Des Moines Register, 6/11/14)

McGuire was co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Iowa

McGuire had Hillary Clinton fundraisers in her home. In 2007, the New York Times reported, “On Friday night, Mrs. Clinton had dinner in Des Moines at the home of a leading Democrat, Andrea McGuire, and was joined by several other influential party members: Mr. Boswell; the state Senate Democratic leader, Michael Gronstal; and Bonnie Campbell, the former state attorney general, among others.” (“Clinton, in Iowa, Vows to ‘Renew the Promise of America,’” New York Times, 1/28/07)

In 2007, McGuire served on Hillary Clinton’s National Council of Civic Leaders as well as the Women’s Leadership Council for Team Hillary in Iowa.

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2015/04/some-fun-facts-about-the-new-iowa-democratic-party-chair/
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/2015/01/17/three-pros-and-three-cons-of-andy-mcguire-as-iowa-democratic-party-chair-updated/

[AlbertCat]

42. More nepotism I see

This is like, what? the 5 or 6th episode of high level nepotism?

[pnwmom]

48. Bernie's campaign says they're not disputing it.

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

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.

[JimDandy]

64. What their campaign exactly said is: *There's no plan to look backwards* Tad Devine 2 Feb

Devine's remark sounds very off the cuff to me. Plans change. Sanders was asking for the raw data results also on Feb 2. There's no indication whether Devine said that before or after the campaign asked for the raw data.

Since there is no contextual reference to Devine's remark (If he was asked a direct question, Politicus should have included that.) nor a time given for that remark, right now I give more weight to the raw data request as an indication of their campaign's ongoing concern.

Unless some contract prohibits Sanders from disclosing the raw numbers their campaign gathered, they are free to release them, and they should, if for no other reason but to provide their best proof that they won the popular vote. As another puplication said, it is likely that they won that.

[pnwmom]

65. By Tuesday the Iowa Party had already said they wouldn't be getting the raw data,

that the issue was closed, and I can't find any statements from Bernie's people re-opening the issue. Have you?

[JimDandy]

67. The head of the Iowa Dems said that in the wee hours Tuesday morning.

Sander's campaign wasn't the party that said the matter is closed. And I know of nothing more current on this issue than that, on Tuesday, the Sanders campaign wanted the raw vote data.

[pnwmom]

68. So you haven't seen anything contradicting this after Tuesday:

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.

[JimDandy]

71. So you haven't seen anything contradicting my original reply to you.

See how that works.

Politicus provided extremely weak tea that isn't worth drinking.

[pnwmom]

72. If Bernie was still calling for data, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing about it.

He's not exactly the kind to hold back.

But he no doubt knows that state parties -- and not state governments -- are the only ones in charge of their caucuses. Courts have ruled that parties decide how they're going to allocate their delegates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511140110

[questionseverything]

77. so if this is the iowa dem party's line

that they get to decide no matter how the voters vote....then they need to say so

[pnwmom]

78. They did in my state when they went to court to say that they wouldn't

use the state primary -- they were going to use their caucuses. And the judge accepted their argument.

[questionseverything]

79. primaries can easily be rigged...transparency is the key

[pnwmom]

80. State primaries have to follow state election laws and have to be transparent.

Caucuses can be whatever parties want them to be and don't have to follow most election laws.

[questionseverything]

82. that state primaries are transparent is the biggest bunch of stink i have read today

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7900

[JimDandy]

81. This OP has the latest info, as of yesterday, that Sanders still wants the raw voter data

I don't know why you are keeping this up, but I am done now.

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.

ETA: I am a loooong time election integrity activist who is very aware that private corporation voting processes are not within the jurisdiction of the state:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1129224

Elections require transparency. The caucus process and transparency were never meant to be mutually exclusive ideas. This insistence by our Dem Party to not release raw votes damages the appearance of fairness and integrity of our election process. It is hypocritical to attack Republicans (most notably Gore 2000) on election transparency, when we still fail at that, right now, in 2016.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1126257

Sander's request for an accurate raw vote total is just business! If our party, in this case the Iowa Democrats, can't handle such a reasonable request to perform a contractual obligation, then it needs to get out of the business of elections.

[pnwmom]

90. I agree that the party should stop doing caucuses and let the state government

run primaries.

[JimDandy]

91. Glad we have something to agree about.

As this election seasons continues, sadly less and less of these moments occur.

[pnwmom]

92. We have caucuses in my own state so I knew they would cause a problem

in the tight election that was about to happen in Iowa.

I'm not very hopeful about the others, including my state's.

I'm dreading the idea of going, but I am. Giving up 4 hours on a Saturday morning to tromp around a gym while someone tries to count our heads. But my Bernie-supporting son can't vote because there's no provision for out-of -state college students to vote in caucuses. (And he can't vote in the primary there without losing his state residency here, which he needs to take classes in the summer.)

[jillan]

2. I wonder what would have happened if Bernie won by .02 of 1%?

What if those coin tosses went the other way?

I wonder.

[TwilightGardener]

5. There's no way the Clinton camp would accept it without a challenge.

But they want Bernie to do so.

[Betty Karlson]

8. Of course: Debbie expects all millennials to be complacent...

[peacebird]

10. And the Iowa Dem chair was part of Hillary's team in 2008

How impartial and unbiased do you suppose she is?

[KingCharlemagne]

31. Judging by McGuire's vanity plate -- "HRC 2016" -- she is the paragon

of impartiality.

[peacebird]

39. You have got to be kidding me... HRC2016 is her vanity plate?

Good grief.....

[KingCharlemagne]

41. I wish I were. Someone here posted a pic of it a couple days ago, but I didn't bookmark it. - nt

[Skinner]

9. Apparently they did go the other way

Officials who reported county delegate totals without using the party’s smartphone app weren’t required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss, said Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party. Lau said seven coin flips were reported statewide, and Bernie Sanders won six of them.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowa-caucus-coin-flip-count-unknown/79708740/

(For the record, I have no problem with the Iowa Democratic Party releasing any and all info about the caucus.)

[elias49]

12. Weird. Maybe I won the coin tosses???!!

Funny how things always get murky when a Clinton is involved. Nothing straightforward. Nothing uncontested.
Little wonder that Hillary pulls such poor numbers on her "honesty".

[Skinner]

13. Not sure how you got that from my post...

...but ok.

[elias49]

23. Just this: for most of the night and day after the caucuses

it was Clinton who won the coin tosses. Now Sanders 'won the coin tosses. Just my way of saying "So what happened? How long before the story is straightened out?" Hey! Maybe YOU won the tosses. We'll wait and see, though.
Something smells like tuna.

[TwilightGardener]

32. The story has changed multiple times, and then we were told it didn't even matter and wasn't

what awarded her 23 delegates to Bernie's 21. But then how did .2% difference in state delegates equal two more national delegates for Hillary? Were some precincts weighted more heavily than others? You'd think they'd be evenly split. A thorough look at the process and data should reveal much, but then Hillary's friendlies in the state party are controlling both still, and there's no oversight.

[questionseverything]

63. that is the huge problem

we all went to bed and it was tied 21-21

then the next morning it is 23-21 even tho there were several reports of bernie wins in those late reported precincts

it is all smoke and mirrors

[madfloridian]

73. Such a very close margin demands more scrutiny...

It would trigger a recount in many states with primaries.

[George II]

44. What about Sanders? After all, based on the facts above HE won six of seven coin tosses.

[madfloridian]

74. Well, that the exact opposite we heard earlier. So which version do we trust?

[bobbobbins01]

18. This is false.

Links to video of coin tosses here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/02/hillary-won-six-straight-coin-tosses-to-win-handful-of-county-delegates-video/

[Skinner]

24. I think it is probably an accurate statenent of the facts that the Iowa party is aware of.

But we also know that it is not a completely reliable accounting of all the coin tosses in the state, because the Iowa Democratic Party itself makes clear that "Officials who reported county delegate totals without using the party’s smartphone app weren’t required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss."

What do we know?

We know of three coin tosses that Hillary won, because we have the three videos on the page you link in your post. I am not aware of any other videos -- I suspect the Daily Caller (Tucker Carlson's right-wing rag) would have posted all of the videos they were aware of.

We also know that the Iowa Democratic Party is aware of seven coin tosses, of which Bernie won 6 and Hillary won 1. We don't know if the one Hillary toss reported by the Iowa Democratic party is one of the ones from the video.

So we have reliable evidence of three (or four) pro-Hillary coin tosses, and six pro-Sanders coin tosses.

Even if we accept the stories bumping around the Internet that Hillary won six coin tosses, that gets us up to six vs. six.

I think that's probably the best we can do with the information available to us.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Obviously we need more information then. n/t

[JimDandy]

70. Exactly...McGuire could clear up all of these questions by providing the raw voter data. n/t

[restorefreedom]

26. this......

[840high]

47. Hillary would get a recount. No doubt about it.

[NorthCarolina]

7. It seems pretty obvious that the system was likely gamed, and the actual results compromised.

Did anyone expect any less? Obviously Bernie didn't since he had the forethought to have his own count of the results taken.

[TwilightGardener]

11. This was Bernie's first caucus. This was the Combined-Clintons'..what--fourth?

He's a decent man, but he's going to have to learn how to street-fight. Not sure if anything corrupt went on here in IA, but he shouldn't rely on Clinton-friendly vote counters and results-reporters. That much is clear.

[Dragonfli]

17. The problem is, She has positioned her familiars at every key point in the process

Team Hillary has an operative running the DNC, and apparently the key officials in charge at every point so far in these contests, forums, caucuses and debates are also all well placed members of trusted Clinton machine operatives.

She is not leaving anything to chance, not debate scheduling, not vote counting, not superdelegates, not media, not even chance appears to be left to chance when it comes to this campaign.

In a way, you have to admire the pure Machiavellian perfection of her decades long run for power and money. The bible is not her holy book, "The Prince" is.

[TwilightGardener]

20. It was this way in 2008, even more so now.

It makes Bernie's showing in IA all that much more impressive, because the ONLY advantage he had is that people liked him and his message there. We all know how much that counts in the end, compared with: party machinery, organization, ground game, endorsements, donors, cash on hand, name recognition, and so on. In other words, it probably won't be enough for him in the long run. But I still have hope.

[Dragonfli]

28. Her new problem is that after seeing it in '08 and yet again now, ppl are wising up

They are catching on to the out in the open unfairness of it all, it is showing in her unfavorability ratings, as well as her numbers regarding her honesty (or lack thereof).

Nobody likes to be played, the information savvy younger crowd see right through her and do not even watch the networks that are her donors and friends in this fight. It may actually backfire on her. Unfortunately, if she wins the nom with these machinations, her unfavorable and untrustworthy numbers will be even higher by then and She may end up being responsible for a fascist-lite Republican gaining the white house.

Her blind ambition may lose all for us, hurting us far worse than her just winning the nom and Presidency, capitulating to the Republicans on SS, War, privatization of the commons, neoliberal trade deals, deregulation and the many other things her brand of centrism is known to weaken and destroy.

Bernie needs to win or our transformation into Oligarchy will be a done, irreversible deal IMO. We need to fight even harder if that is even possible With the deck so clearly and completely stacked against a fair run.

[Hiraeth]

21. so, you think the Leader of the Free World should be a street fightin' man? May I suggest:

[questionseverything]

76. they do have their own count and it does not match the partys

that is why they are asking for an accounting

[RiverLover]

14. IOW, Use tradition as an excuse to block transparency. /nt

[Hiraeth]

19. Thank you for integrity in our election system. K&R

[randome]

22. Oh, please. When tens of thousands of people and hundreds of counties are involved...

...there will always be a whiff of impropriety. ALWAYS.

Right now Trump is claiming Cruz cheated.

Right now, lawyers for the Bundy Bunch are claiming the indictments that were handed down were not done properly. See how that works? Simply claiming to be distrustful is not enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ed Suspicious]

54. Then there should be no problem with all parties laying their cards on the table. Easy enough then.

This would have disappeared instantly had Clinton advocated for transparency. Might have even saved her from having to disprove impropriety later. Now it will hound her like a pack of dogs. She just isn't very good at this.

[madfloridian]

75. There should never be a problem with transparency.

For everyone, you are right.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. This is exactly why the majority of Americans don't vote. They know the government and the electoral

process are corrupt.

[CharlotteVale]

27. K&R. This is the kind of behavior I'd expect from the Republican Party.

[jeff47]

59. Ironically, the Republican party in IA is more transparent

They use paper ballots. So you can actually do a recount.

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[madfloridian]

94. ....

Most welcome, Willy T.

[GoneFishin]

30. Regardless of who you support you should be for transparency.

[frylock]

33. What is the Iowa Democratic Party trying to hide?

[blm]

34. Memory Lane: DesMoines Register in 2012 'stomaching' Romney win…..

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/04/mitt-romney-wins-iowa-caucuses/

So Santorum won - doesn't really change anything according to the DesMoines Register:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/19/register-exclusive-2012-gop-caucus-count-unresolved/

My point is that the corporate media is always full of shit, especially the Register which became a stenographer for RW machine some years ago.


Don't trust their 'concern'.

That said - Sanders is still my primary vote.

[SoapBox]

35. K & R!

I would anticipate more "stench" as we move from state to state.

The fix was in for The Annointed One...and then Bernie and millions of American voters started getting in the way...the Entrenched Cushy and Elite Establishment Turd Wayers don't like it.

So...more stench to come.

[A Simple Game]

37. Maybe it's time for the primaries/caucuses to rotate. If we can't trust in the accuracy of the

"first in the nation" caucus, perhaps they shouldn't be the first.

Do the Iowa Democrats know how much the State could lose if they were say... 40th in the nation instead of first?

It would make much more sense to have California, Texas, or New York first then have a few small states. Or maybe do large, small, large, small, etc. but rotate them after every census.

[saidsimplesimon]

40. It's a Republic style democracy.

We all know there are states that do not pay their fare share of the federal tax toll. Some states, in a pure capitalist definition, are moochers. They want more influence in the democratic process than "one person, one vote" without spending a single cent on socialist enterprises like highways, local police and fire protection. They have no desire to protect our election process from the likes of the billionaire Koch class. Madness will not prevail, on my watch.

[Plucketeer]

61. What the hell???

You tryin' to promote common sense er sumpthin'??? Just put your radical notions in a wheebarrow and roll them the hell outta here!

[Ford_Prefect]

38. The absence of transparency and the absolutism of the party Chair suggests they don't really know

and made up their numbers to suit the preferred outcome. If there was a demonstrable truth then there would be no argument about examining the evidence since it would without doubt support the published result.

Someone dropped the ball Monday night and doesn't want to be embarrassed in the light of day, someone with a lot of face to lose over this question. Even if the only result we can know is that the numbers are essentially correct and the performance of those in charge was to say the least sloppy and unprofessional it would make clear that any errors were those done in good faith by very tired and confused human beings, rather than what appears to be an attempt to bend the results to an outcome preferred by the winner and her acolytes.

Not in My party we don't? I have news for you. This is the party of ALL the democrats not merely the select few. We pay the bills and haul the freight and in the end those are Our Votes you presume to play with. You'd better get it right and be able to prove that or life at the top of the party will get very interesting indeed!

[AlbertCat]

43. it would without doubt support the published result.

Exactly. Why not confirm Madam Clinton's victory absolutely? Especially when it so close.

[INdemo]

45. As we think about it now..Hillary rushed to declare herself the winner

and giving her victory speech ...then the Iowa Democratic Party was quick to declare Hillary the winner when there should have been an automatic audit.

The Hillary team was OK with the rapid results but with the Des Moines Register now calling for an audit,a paper that endorsed
Hillary, her team cannot do anything but cooperate as an audit moves forward.

[Gman]

46. The butt stupidest thing about this article is DNC delegates weren't even selected

They just elected people to go to county conventions to proportionately represent their candidate. If there is an error it will work itself out.

The sheer stupidity on top of raw ignorance is astounding. Sanders could actually end up "winning". If you know party rules you know why. If you don't, look it up.

What a butt stupid article.

[madfloridian]

49. Go talk to the Des Moines Register, tell them it's a "butt-stupid" article.

It sounds to me like they are proud of their caucus and want everything to be above-board..don't you?

[pnwmom]

51. Bernie's spokesman Tad Davine announced they're not disputing it.

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.

[JimDandy]

86. That's old info from Tuesday Feb 2. The above OP is from yesterday:

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.

[Gman]

53. Is there no end to the whining on this?

What are supporters going to do when Sanders gets his ass handed to him in SC? Will his supporters once again explain to Blacks why they know what's best for them?

Just like Bernie thinking he defines progressives.

[madfloridian]

55. So a newspaper loudly lauded here a few days ago is now a "whiner"? Oh, my.

[coyote]

66. Oh FFS

IfClinton wanted this, I'd be behind 100% and i can't stand the woman. Quit your whining because people want a little transparency.

[Uncle Joe]

56. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[mhatrw]

60. It's really hard to believe that a Clinton could be a cheater. nt

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[madfloridian]

69. I didn't say that. Neither does the article.

[madfloridian]

62. Interesting post in comments from UK poster, nail on head.

You say "the World is laughing at Iowa".
Are you defining 'world' the same way as you do for The World Series?!!
I can assure you - over here in the UK we aren't laughing, we're crying, at how tragic it is. To elect the leader of the Western world, and one of the world's most powerful people, by such means.
The fact that the Chair is so outrageously biased to one candidate should be grounds for immediate dismissal.
Where's your democracy?!
Like · Reply · 32 · 11 hrs

[malokvale77]

83. A rec for this post. nt

[Uncle Joe]

84. Do you know if any of the corporate media conglomerates; CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc. etc.

television networks have picked up on the Des Moines Register editorial?

They were quick to hype that paper's endorsement of Hillary prior to the caucus, I wonder if they're still paying attention to the Des Moines Register?

[madfloridian]

85. Wow! Read this from DKos by fladem who worked at the caucus. It's shocking.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/4/1480074/-Why-you-cannot-audit-the-Iowa-Caucuses-and-they-are-REALLY-troubled-A-personal-story

BUT THE CAUCUS WAS SUPPOSED TO START AT 7. WHERE WAS EVERYBODY!

2. Well I can answer that question. About 10 minutes after I took this picture someone mentioned that there was a very long line outside of the school. We opened the door, and it went front of the school door, back to the parking lot, and then snaked along the parking lot.

So here is what happened. When you got to the door you checked in at one table, and they directed you to your caucus location. Except to do that they had to look you up — and there were 2 or 3 people who were doing that: for a location with SIX precincts. So they were completely understaffed.

There were 10 delegates at stake in 224 — 226. At 6:30 I had no doubt we would lose all of them.

This is 30 minutes later. Remember — the caucus was supposed to START at 7. See the line — those are people waiting to be checked in at their precinct. It would take another 50 minutes to complete this.

Now here is something that will get you mad. One of the Party people complained that the people standing in line should have gone home — that they were delaying the caucus. See the woman in the glasses — she was a Clinton precinct captain — and as appalled as I was.

More at the link, with pics.

[mhatrw]

89. This is why Michael Whouley came to Iowa.

If you can't win fair, strategically muck everything up.

Many retired people have nothing critical to do the next day, and enjoy wasting their time at a social voting event. Young people leave if it is too big of a hassle to complete the process.

[madfloridian]

95. Heard he was hanging around in Iowa again lately.

It was not healthy for Dean when he was there in 2004.

[FloriTexan]

87. Kick!

Good for the Sanders' campaign for their due diligence and requiring things to reconcile. Yes, elections that are this close usually have a requirement to recount the votes.

[madfloridian]

88. Amen to that.

[madfloridian]

93. Interesting post in comments from an Iowan. Very upset.

Angela Hagerty ·
Works at Freelance Writer/Editor
Gren Ville Believe me, Iowans are mourning right along with you. Well, some anyway. I am not mourning the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. As a Sanders supporter, I saw his campaign blossom from 4 percent support to a virtual tie--against a very powerful, successful establishment candidate who had a juggernaut of money, resources and an amazing ground game. I was thrilled with his "virtual tie" and I consider it a success.

I am disheartened because there are anomolies that happened around the state in many Democratic precincts--and that our Democratic party will not allow Bernie Sanders to examine the math sheets that were turned in. It doesn't help, as others have pointed out, that the gatekeeper who is saying an affirmative, "No" to Sander's requests is an avid Hillary Clinton supporter--the Chairperson of the Iowa Democratic Party, Andy McGuire. Her vanity plate reads, "HRC2016". She was one of the co-chairs of Hillary's 2008 Iowa campaign. The New York Times has reported that McGuire has held fundraisers for Hillary Clinton, in her own home in Iowa. McGuire is certainly entitled to support the candidate of her choice. She's an active Democrat, so of course she will have strong opinions. The problem is that she is the gatekeeper. She is preventing an examination of our caucus results AND she's an avid Clinton supporter, fundraiser and co-chair of Clinton's 2008 Iowa campaign. There is an appearance of impropriety that makes our state and our process look dishonest and suspect.
Like · Reply · 15 · 9 hrs