Bernie Sanders takes a closer look at Iowa caucus totals
Source: Omaha World Herald
By Joseph Morton
The Bernie Sanders campaign continued to raise questions Wednesday about the results of Iowas Democratic caucuses, while state party officials continued to stand behind them.
Final numbers released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Tuesday morning showed that Hillary Clinton finished with a tiny advantage, but Sanders isnt ready to concede that he lost.
Right now were going through every precinct and double-checking numbers and were doing our due diligence, and the senator wants us to see what we find before we make any decisions moving forward, Sanders spokeswoman Rania Batrice told The World-Herald.
By their nature, caucuses are chaotic, messy affairs. More than 171,000 Democrats poured into gyms and church basements at nearly 1,700 precincts around the state Monday night. Live video feeds from the caucuses at times showed confusion, yelling and procedural disputes.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.omaha.com/news/iowa/bernie-sanders-takes-a-closer-look-at-iowa-caucus-totals/article_f09f2747-9c4f-5ced-bfe5-582ec7cace52.html
Donate to DU for Bernie at Act Blue here: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie
dinkytron
(568 posts)Kind of frightening and even sad that potential election fraud, no matter the scale, is dismissed as trivial by some... or they use of the ol' 'sour grapes' trope to minimize it. That ain't democracy...
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)stonewalling. Because they are, I believe the irregularity rumors.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Smells of desperation.
ananda
(28,866 posts)Unlike Gore and Kerry -- I should hope!
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)close race leads to the appearance of fear of transparency and perhaps something to hide.
Since Hillary would never corrupt herself with money or placing key allies in vote tallying positions, I expect her similar call for a closer look at this caucus promptly, probably later today.
As we know, she is 100% honest no matter how many times she appears to fib on YouTube (she only appears to be fibbing when contradicting herself on several occasions and the American people can tell, just look at the numbers showing 100% trust in her honesty)
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)C-SPAN Stream: Clinton Precinct Chair lied about the vote counting in Precinct 43 and it was all caught on camera. self
submitted 2 days ago * by Mathsquatchx4
This was for #43 (I believe) in Des Moines, IA held at Roosevelt High School. It was broadcast live on C-SPAN2.
Final delegate count was Clinton 5, Sanders 4. It was very close. Here is the breakdown:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O'Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
After this, the groups realign and another count was conducted. Sanders's group leads performed a FULL recount of all the supporters in his group. The Clinton team only added the new supporters gained to her original number from the first round of voting. I did not see another recount of the Clinton supporters taking place. It would have been very hard to miss that activity.
SECOND ROUND: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
It was assumed by the chair, Drew Gentsch, that the voter difference was due to a few people that left the building before the second round began. The question is whether there were really 456 total people present for the second round of voting. That was not clear, as Clinton's team did not perform a recount of ALL of the Hillary supporters during the second round of voting. We don't know how many Hillary supporters were in the room. Some of them may have also left the building between rounds.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)What's a bit of fudging on a caucus count, compared to getting both your personal income and your campaign money from Goldman Sachs and other lovable Wall Street banksters, corporate predators and billionaires? Hey, all "viable" campaigns do it, right? Except for one.
The kind of sophistry and smears the Clinton operative/volunteer corps think is part of "playing the game to win" is pretty corrupt too, intellectually anyway. But that's also okay, because it's culturally sanctioned. It's supposed to be normal.
The most difficult corruption to root out, in other words, is the kind you no longer see.
there are serious conflicts of interest for the Iowa Dem Chair.
frylock
(34,825 posts)yay dems.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Would smell of sloppiness.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Verification is desperation?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)What was your opinion in 2000 of counting all the votes?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)My Star Trek universal translator said it. I didn't.
Every caucus worksheet has the number present and the result. What is so tough? They won't even release the total. Why else do they only say 171,000 participated. Hillary person in charge might be a reason? Or the microsoft app. Microsoft has donated to Hillary.
Too many questions. You have to have transparency.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Got it.
Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)Seems they couldn't count right.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)HUGH!
There is about 1.3 x 10^9 billion cubic kilometers of water in the oceans. There are 1.0 × 10^15 cubic centimeters in 1 cubic kilometer. There are 25 drops of water in 1 cubic centimeter.
Multiple those three numbers together, and you get 3.25 × 10^25 drops of water in the oceans.
Hope that helps!
Source(s):
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)data, it's really not that hard, at least for progressives.
fbc
(1,668 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Well done.
jillan
(39,451 posts)A family member - a 20something yo woman that is not political called me to ask me what happened in Iowa.
People are questioning this.
And to all those that are questioning Bernie, my response is what if the shoe was on the other foot?
There are too many unanswered questions.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I was under the impression that they had refused.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)There's no "popular vote" breakdown in the OP, or in the article its article links to, as far as I can tell. I think te Sanders campaign wants the number of people who voted for him, statewide, and the number that voted for Hillary, statewide, among other things. Have you seen this info elsewhere that I have not seen?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Apparently the 'calculated' totals were released, not the raw precinct totals that the formulas could be recalculated from.
That is what the Sanders campaign and the paper were after.
My mistake
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"By their nature, caucuses are chaotic, messy affairs. ...Live video feeds from the caucuses at times showed confusion, yelling and procedural disputes."
Then switch to primaries. Let people vote all day, with their votes counting equally.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Then there is a paper trail. End of drama. End of story.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)a number connected to a name for record keeping after the event. I want to make sure when I vote that it didn't go to the wrong person.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Is taking this head on from the Start. It helps to Focus the peoples eye and attention in subsequential states to corrupt Election Fraud and Tally practices. Startling, and sad to see how many out there are ignorant to this issue.
We see how wonderful things turned out with previous candidates keeping quiet and letting mischievous crap like this slide.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)amen. as voters we have a responsibility to pay attention and not ignore the potential for shenanigans, to investigate, and to not ignore any form of injustice.
at least, this is how i view my responsibility as a participant in our 'democracy'.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)But I won't be as active here as I was. I have a new place to play: http://jackpineradicals.org/forumdisplay.php?39-The-Wizard-Room
OS
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)and make their recommendations public. If they say "do this", and "do that", the public will want those suggestions to happen. It seems to me like it's recognized that while a caucus has value, it must be able to meet the demands of lots of people attending.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Welcome back.
Omaha Steve
(99,660 posts)I will be here less than most are used to. Labor and misc, but not near the volume of the past.
Tuesday I was babysitting so I didn't do much of anything that day anywhere.
I had a post here last night I wish I hadn't made.
I do have a new place to play: http://jackpineradicals.org/forumdisplay.php?39-The-Wizard-Room
OS
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Given the demographics of Iowa, Sanders should have won by a landslide. But he couldn't even eke out a win there, so now he's going play sore loser. Really pathetic stuff.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The people will be successful in throwing out the Wealthy 1% and their puppets.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)"You're crowing when you were up (maybe) by 0.2-0.3%?" That is nothing over which to declare a definite win, especially with coin tosses and the like.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)It was a close call, and the results should be verified.