Iowa's nightmare revisited: Was correct winner called?

[retrowire]

Source: Des Moines Register

The Iowa Democratic Party said the updated final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was:

Clinton: 700.59

Sanders: 696.82.

That's a 3.77-count margin between Clinton, the powerful establishment favorite who early on in the Democratic race was expected to win in a virtual coronation, and Sanders, a democratic socialist who few in Iowa knew much about a year ago.

Sanders campaign aides told the Register they've found some discrepancies between tallies at the precinct level and numbers that were reported to the state party. The Iowa Democratic Party determines its winner based not on a head count, like in the Republican caucuses, but on state delegate equivalents, tied to a math formula. And there was enough confusion, and untrained volunteers on Monday night, that errors may have been made.

-------

Team Sanders had its own app that allowed supporters and volunteers to send precinct-level results directly to the campaign. At the same time, caucus chairs sent their official results to the state party, either over a specially built Microsoft app or via phone. Sanders aides asked to sit down with the state party to review the paperwork from the precinct chairs, Batrice said.

"We just want to work with the party and get the questions that are unanswered answered," she said.

McGuire, in an interview with the Register, said no.

Read more: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/iowas-nightmare-revisited-correct-winner-called-caucus-night/79702010/

---

So Bernie's campaign made their request to reevaluate the numbers and Dr. Andy McGuire, Mrs. Hillary2016 license plate simply said, "No."

Hmmm.... That's not very fair or unbiased.

[grasswire]

1. Boooooo!

Hiss!

[trillion]

11. Why boo hiss? It's a chance to get the Wall Streets super pac candidate to give up over 300

delegates. This is a good thing - for progressive dems at least who don't want Wall Street and the TPP running our country.
Do you know what the TPP is?

Here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/7/transcanada_sues_the_us_for_15b

If you start at minute 17 and go only 5 minutes you'll be informed.

Then you'll figure out why people are voting for Bernie.

[retrowire]

23. grass wire is pro Bernie!

they're booing and hissing Andy McGuire I believe.

[pnwmom]

52. Hillary has announced her opposition to the final version of the TPP.

But facts don't seem to matter around here anymore.

And the 300 delegates? What are you talking about?

[Android3.14]

75. Are her announcements the "gold standard" for believable?

Only the naive are unworried she may flip-flop back to supporting the TPP, especially with her corporate puppetmasters calling the shots.

[pnwmom]

79. Only the naive swallow the 25 year smear campaign the Rethugs have waged against her. nt

Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

[noiretextatique]

122. what a ridiculous comment

you do know that some Democrats don't support Clinton, don't you? Are we all dupes of the RW? Geez...this is the most pathetic meme ever.

[PatrynXX]

144. ex Clinton supporters

Crossed the Line and rooted caucused for Donald Trump. imagine that. I didn't cross the line yet. Kinda dumb for half of the reasons why (outsourcing jobs and you go to trump? lol ) made in china

[TheFarseer]

143. She supports TPP is a 25 year old RW smear?

Didn't know TOO has been in the works that long.

[pnwmom]

145. It's a recent DU smear. She does not support what turned out to be

the final draft of the TPP. She had hope for it while it was still being negotiated and drafted, but has rejected the final version.

[catnhatnh]

85. Hillary's opposition to the TPP

is even more recent than her fresh and shiny support of gay marriage...

[ViseGrip]

131. Hillary helped to design the TPP while at State. No way is she against this!

[JDPriestly]

120. Her "final opposition" has weasel words in it. Weasel words.

She is a lawyer, and she knows how to salt her statements with weasel words that don't say what lay people think they say.

She picked out the labor provisions and said she did not agree with them. But she said nothing about the rest of the agreement that is profoundly anti-American-labor. With a slight tweak, she can say the agreement is OK, and accept it.

I do not trust her on this. And I don't think that the American people will trust her on it either.

We have suffered too many job losses and a vast reduction in wages because of the trade agreements. Nobody has forgotten that Bill Clinton signed NAFTA.

We will not be snockered again by another trade agreement that costs us jobs. We need to rebuild our industrial capacity, not weaken it further.

[trillion]

135. I think the fact that she helped write the first draft has went by you.

Right now Hillary is panicing and saying anything to get elected. Do you know what could happen if her numbers don't get significantly over Bernies? Her superpacs could pull out just like Carsons did. Did you know Carsons has 5 member super pac team all quit at the same time and joined Cruz's campaign?

Clinton and Cruz are far closers to each other than you think. Same backers. Goldman Sachs among many, is funding both of them and funded all the 12 Republican Candidates, Hillary and Omalley. Rubio just got a lot of Jeb Bushs money since Bush wasn't preforming. Google all of this. Last numbers I saw was they spent the 2nd highest amount on Hillary, after Jeb Bush who they spent the most money on and are now abandoning. Trump is also not telling the truth, not only is he backed by Goldman Sachs too, he owes money to EVERY SINGLE major bank in America and is beholden to all of them. Again google.

Make No Mistake: Clinton and Cruz Are Goldman Sachs' Candidates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/travis-irvine/make-no-mistake-clinton-a_b_9103096.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

Note that not only is Bernie the only candidate refusing super pacs and not on Goldman Sach's payroll, he has also said his Secretary of Treasury will not come from Goldman Sachs - departing from the norm. Clinton has made a lot of money from Goldman Sachs in the last two years. What do you think she'll do for them?


Bernie Sanders And Big Business Find Something They Can Actually Agree On
Neither thinks Hillary Clinton is really opposed to the TPP trade deal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-tpp-chamber-of-commerce_us_56abb9bde4b0010e80e9f5b2

[Dustlawyer]

136. The head of the US Chamber of Commerce said she will support the TPP after she gets

in office. I think he would know!

[A Simple Game]

141. Her opposition is to the way it is presently worded if I recall correctly.

Not to the direction the document is intended to take.

[billhicks76]

125. Clinton Fatigue Already

Her campaign is also ingested with liars and cheaters. Clintonites inspire nausea and that's about it.

[grasswire]

151. I should have been more clear.

Boo to Andy.

[Gene Debs]

2. STOP TRYING TO THWART THE CHOSEN ONE'S CORONATION

[trillion]

12. It's time to say no to banksters and the rest of the blood sucking corporations, including Goldman

Sachs.

[840high]

36. The crown has slipped quite a bit.

[pnwmom]

53. This is a description of typical caucuses. The paranoia level is high around here.

But all states should switch to the much simpler and more accurate and more representative and inclusive primary system.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. But.........but..............the Coronation must proceed!

---->for the humor impaired.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. "expected to win in a virtual coronation"

[forest444]

5. You know, Jeb(!) thought the same thing.

Funny that.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

91. Nothing to worry abou then. Virtual means "not exactly".

[d_legendary1]

6. The establishment said it was fair and unbiased

Clinton wins and Sanders doesn't. Don't bother asking again unless you want Trump, Rubio, or Cruz running the country you crazy liberal! OH! And thanks for your future Clinton vote!

(just in case)

[trillion]

14. Start with getting people to understand what the TPP is. The reason we have hillary voters on a

progressive site is because they don't know what TPP is about. Most have also never sat through 5 minutes of Bernie Sanders talking. They don't know who he is or why so many people here support him. Remember he got almost no TV time. And these people clearly don't watch liberal news - ie. DemocracyNow.org. It's created a huge divide on this site.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Some DUers know what TPP is all about

and they don't care, or they even support it. Or they believe Hillary's mealy-mouthed claim that she's kinda, sorta, maybe unfavorable to the TPP, even though she called it the gold standard of trade agreements and won't even lobby against it.

[trillion]

35. I would hope no duer would support it. i would think that would be reason to be banned from this

site.

[Art_from_Ark]

42. There have been a few unabashed supporters of TPP here

Take this OP, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649703

[trillion]

89. Wow. That is really really bad. You should have posted links from Democracynow.org to them giving

them the facts and telling them about the 2 law suits right now that they are about to stick the US public with for deciding not to build the pipeline. Via nafta we get charged even for their losses for simply deciding not to build it and the TPP has all the wording from nafta and worse so when it goes into effect we double our liability. Even not being legally allowed to label where meat is from is included into this - it's because of Nafta and will be covered under the new TPP.

I know Obama lied and said it would be good for us - his worst lie in office, but as Dems I would think they'd due diligence and know better. I'm going to bet those are Hillary supporters as they tend to spend 0 time doing any diligence and believe what she says, and they act like Obama is all that. I voted for him twice but the guy has some serious flaws.

[Art_from_Ark]

130. I actually made an OP about an anti-TPP rally I attended in Tokyo last May

Most of the respondents were supportive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026753877

[trillion]

137. Awesome! I gave you a rec, not that you don't have plenty.

[Enthusiast]

132. 9,000 views and 7 recommendations. Not a very popular position.

[pnwmom]

73. What does that have to do with Iowa? Both Hillary and Bernie are against the final draft.n/t

[slumcamper]

7. Here's the deal (an Iowa perspective)

Bernie Sanders very likely WON the popular vote at the Iowa caucus.

I was a Sanders precinct captain in a relatively small, rural precinct. Iowa had 1,682 precincts this year. Of the 141 who gathered at my precinct, Bernie won by a margin of 5 people. This is in a county that is predominantly red and went solidly for Cruz in all 8 precincts. But we don't care about those anti-gubmint yayhooz.

My point is that the final delegate count is a POOR reflection of the actual live body count. Low-population rural precincts like mine tend to be overrepresented in terms of delegates awarded. My daughter in Iowa City attended her precinct which broke 680 (sanders) to 140 (Clinton), and the 17 O'Malley supporters all went Bernie's way.

The Iowa Democratic Party does not report an aggregate number for preference for individual candidates. The fact that Sanders literally SWAMPED Clinton in MANY high-turnout precincts (especially urban, college and university precincts) is not reflected in the final delegate total. There is no premium in terms of delegates awarded for crushing the opponent.

Also, the caucus does not allow for absentee support. That's a problem for a candidate whose message likely resonates with battlers working night jobs, struggling to make ends meet. They aren't able to caucus. (Incidentally, I'm introducing a resolution at the county level that I hope becomes a plank in the state platform to address this structural disenfranchisement problem)

So...the revolution is intact, stronger than most realize, and will certainly be more apparent next week in NH.

That said, however imperfect is may be, I would NEVER trade the caucus system for a primary. The caucus is the epitome of engagement. Next, the county convention, then the district, then the state....so we are perpetually engaged, always vetting, always thinking, always working to advance the best ideas and candidates that America births. It is very tiring but the rewards far exceed the costs.

Bernie likely won BIG in terms of turnout. Clinton played a masterful strategic game with Iowa's caucus map and math. Each has merit, and this country will be much better served by either Bernie of HRC than the trainwreck of hate and pessimism that we witness coming from the right.

On to NH.

[roody]

15. If Bernie had a captain in every precinct,

he knows the raw numbers.

[slumcamper]

33. Totally

And as instructed each of us reported those raw numbers to our district field staffer. We reported Clinton's too. So we know what hers were.

Given the hugely disproportionate youth vote that broke toward the Bern, I'd estimate that 10% of the state's 1682 precincts (college precincts especially) saw enormous pro-Bernie turnout, e.g., 3 or 4 Sanders to 1 HRC. And these also happened to be HIGH turnout precincts (500-1000 people).

[pnwmom]

64. But overall the turnout was only about 170K -- much lower than Obama's,

including the youth vote. So even though the youth were overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie, they weren't overwhelmingly present, except in a few locations.

And it isn't Hillary's fault that Iowa retains a caucus system that deliberately gives less weight to voters in certain precincts.

[progressoid]

138. In 2008 the caucus was held in January when students we're home.

This year most were back in College so their votes were not spread around the state. Like the general election, the delegate system doesn't necessarily reflect the popular vote. See Al Gore, 2000.

[aspirant]

16. No, you can't clean-up the house if you ignore the dirt

This isn't a dictatorship, to adamantly refuse to review the tallies is undemocratic.

If you Iowans think that this is the way of righteousness for all voters then shame on you

This revolution is to change things for the better and not to look forward leaving the wrongs behind.

[slumcamper]

30. Bitter a little? Your tone suggests so.

I get that a lot of folks resent Iowa's "first in the nation" status. Actually, I find it pretty damned odd myself. Unless you live here or visit during silly season you have no idea of the saturation of mailings, TV ads, and phone calls. But I'm not complaining.

Righteousness? If that's how you construe the Iowa caucus you're woefully mistaken. I would never trade a prolonged caucus system (local, then county--March, then district--June, then state--July political engagement within the party over 4 months) for a one-and-done primary system.

As I clearly implied, our caucus system is imperfect. I and others will work tirelessly to improve it, challenging the state party to release tallies and offer a mechanism for absentee support.

It would be much EASIER trod to the polls on one day then call it good. We don't do that in Iowa. Politics is 24/7, 365 days here. If you're a junkie for that then I encourage you to join us. I'd suggest Iowa City, ground zero of D activism.

I love it. Don't be bitter.

[aspirant]

44. If advocating change results in a bitter feeling to you, it's yours to diffuse.

Where was resentment of being "first" written in my post? You seem to have a lot of negative inner feelings emerging.

"Righteousness" is for the voters within any system chosen

"I and others will work tirelessly to improve it, challenging the state party to release tallies and offer a mechanism for absentee support". Why would you exclude Bernie from challenging now while pushing to move on and try for your solutions in 2020?

Politics 24/7 gave us Jodi Ernst. I suggest the whole state next time as ground zero.

I love Democracy and the people of the Revolution

[slumcamper]

128. I have nothing against releasing tallies.

In fact, the Republicans do so for their caucus. The resistance seems to emanate from the state party apparatus, i.e., the establishment. No love for them here.

And that would be Joni Ernst. Assuming your "politics 24/7" hypothesis implies that Democrats just "wore out" or some such thing, that's not a very strong vote of confidence in our political endurance! In fact, Braley put his foot in his mouth big time, implicitly degrading farmers. He pissed them off (most already lean right), and that's a fatal move in Iowa. He never clarified and thus hobbled along as a meek and wounded candidate. It was painful to watch. Meanwhile, Ernst was packaged and sold to a disgruntled, uninformed, or misinformed electorate as a bright and new shiny object through a marketing campaign funded by the Koch Brothers. Along the way her campaign courted and built a loyal coalition of farmers, veterans, evangelicals, and even bikers.

Had Braley countered his gaffe aggressively and gone after Ernst as she was heaping ridicule on him he might have fared better. Had the DNC, DSCC, and IDP coordinated to counter the GOP onslaught and help with messaging, and had Braley been able to deliver it forcefully, things might be different. As is was, he and his campaign were dull, boring.

Politics 24/7 did not wear Dems out. Dems had a huge enthusiasm gap, and turnout was low (as usual) in the off-year election. That is a problem we need to address nationally. The GOP certainly has--and is taking advantage of it up and down the line.

I love democracy, and the caucus is "trench democracy." Within such trenches revolutions find the vital energy of the engaged, and that sustains them.

[pnwmom]

65. There are no ballots to count in that stupid system. So nothing to compare

the tallies to.

[pnwmom]

63. We have caucuses here and I worked on the referendum to switch to primaries.

(Which won, but the state democratic party successfully sued to keep the caucuses.) So I couldn't disagree with you more about the benefits of caucuses outweighing the disadvantages.

Maybe they're a fun little event in a small town. I wouldn't know about that, living in a metro area with a population in the millions.

As you have pointed out, caucuses don't give equal weight to each vote; delegates represent different numbers of voters in different districts. Caucuses preclude many voters from being able to participate at all, and they require enormous amounts of volunteer time, and too much time even for the voters.

And Iowa's caucus system, put in the spotlight as it was, has needlessly added to the anonymosity and suspicion between supporters of Bernie and Hillary. This was anything but helpful. Thanks to the caucus system, both sides now can think they were somehow cheated.

Since there were only 170K participants this time around, not anywhere close to Obama's numbers, and young people overall did not turn out in the numbers that they did in 2008, I think it is quite possible that Hillary had more support than shows in the delegate count. But we'll never know. What a lousy system. I wouldn't care except it started off the whole country's primary season on a bad foot.

And I consider my own state's caucuses one of the circles of hell.

[George II]

8. Yes.

[Ford_Prefect]

9. Sounds like Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004.

The ghost of Katherine Harris lives on in Iowa. We were told to beware the rabid right wing zealots but really...

[pnwmom]

66. No, it's just caucuses everywhere, in every year, at least in crowded areas. n/t

[Ford_Prefect]

68. The Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party denies any recount and refuses conflicting evidence.

Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.

The situation echoes the events on the Republican side in the 2012 caucuses, when one winner (Mitt Romney, by eight votes) was named on caucus night, but a closer examination of the paperwork that reflected the head counts showed someone else pulled in more votes (Rick Santorum, by 34 votes). But some precincts were still missing entirely.

How much that is like Florida was! Andy McGuire's sentiments are quite outspoken and her record on Clinton's nomination is loud and clear. The very real possibility that there were votes miscounted for which reasonable evidence exists and the party official with a likely federal appointment on the line says "we don't reconsider anything for anyone". So much for the party of ALL the people. It gives the clear “Four legs good, two legs bad” version of neo-liberal thinking a very personal dimension.

[pnwmom]

69. They have no recount procedure in their rules. They use no paper ballots.

How do they conduct votes? They have people vote with their feet -- literally. Moving from one spot in the room to another, and raising hands, and counting heads.

So how is that supposed to be recounted? How can Bernie's people -- and Bernie, for that matter -- not know that? Or are they just playing dumb so they can get Bernie's supporters all churned up?

What people should be doing is calling for the end of caucuses, period. Like I have been. What you consider a flaw in the process is hard-wired in. You can't have a recount of the people in the caucus once all the voters have gone home.

I saw that video. I saw all the hands going up voting NAY, they did not want to stand there through another head count. So that was the end of that. They went home and there's no one there to count anymore.

And you can't blame this on Andy McGuire. This system has been around forever. She didn't invent it. She's just continued it.

From the Des Moines Register.

“Politics is a contact sport with few referees, so torturing your opponents with questions about the transparency of an election can be very harmful and damaging,” said Steffen Schmidt, a longtime political observer and professor at Iowa State University in Ames.

Discrepancies can occur in official elections, and caucuses are not even official election events run by the secretary of state's office, noted Dennis Goldford, a Drake University professor who closely studies the Iowa caucuses.

"The caucus system isn't built to bear the weight placed on it," he said. "There aren't even paper ballots (in the Democratic caucuses) to use for a recount in case something doesn't add up."

A C-SPAN video (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus) was circulated widely on Facebook and Twitter with claims it was evidence of fraud. In truth, it was an example of the mayhem at some of the most crowded caucus sites, when nose counts differed between rounds of voting because some people left or the initial count was wrong. In this case, precinct No. 43 in Des Moines, a majority of voters, including Sanders backers, voted against a recount.

http://dmreg.co/1SW7scl

[Hoppy]

10. Get an injunction to keep the voting records intact. Then sue for disclosure.

[aspirant]

19. Yes, remember the benefits of the DNC suit

These Establishment bullies need to be challenged, that is what this is all about

[840high]

37. yep

[pnwmom]

70. There are no paper ballots. They count votes by having people move around the room,

and taking a headcount. This is how caucuses do it. Do you want to explain how they can do a recount after all the voters go home?

This is why Bernie has said he's not going to ask for a recount. He couldn't. All he can do is get his supporters all riled up, and he's certainly succeeded in that.

I hate caucuses, and I've been saying all along that everyone would hate them once they saw how they worked. This wasn't an aberration. This was a very typical crowded caucus run by inexperienced, tired volunteers. It wasn't perfect. They never are.

[morningfog]

84. There is still a apart trail of those counts.

The counts were documented and sent to the Iowa Dem party for tally. All of that could be and should be reviewed.

[pnwmom]

95. The counts themselves are meaningless without paper ballots to check them against.

If you saw a discrepancy between two numbers there'd be no way to know which one was correct. I can't believe the way people defend this insane system.

What happened the other day wasn't an aberration. It's just standard operating procedure. If you don't like it, you should push for primaries.

[morningfog]

106. I can push for primaries while asking for a review of any paper trail at the same time.

It is insane system and let's see what is on paper.

[pnwmom]

107. Bernie himself isn't asking for a recount. He knows it would be meaningless. nt

[morningfog]

112. I'm not asking for a recount, just a release of the raw vote data. What are you afraid of?

[pnwmom]

115. I'm not. I'm saying it would be meaningless. ALL the numbers in caucuses

are ALWAYS fuzzy. Here's the fundamental problem: in a two delegate precinct, two candidates getting 25% and 75% of the vote would each get an equal number of delegates: ONE.

People are arguing about twigs and missing the forest.

Everyone should be working to replace caucuses with primaries. There is a fundamental unfairness at the root of the whole system. A single delegate can represent 10 people in a small precinct and 50 in a larger one. How is this fair?

Why are people getting worked up about the number of twigs when the whole forest is rotting?

[morningfog]

121. How else are people going to understand how dumb this forest is unless we see the roots?

Let's get it out there and take a look.

People are getting worked up about the same problem you are pointing to. Releasing the raw data will only help us all. There is nothing to be afraid of.

[pnwmom]

123. By understanding that 1 delegate can equal 10 people or 50 people.

That's the bottom line. That tells you how worthless all these delegate counts are.

[Nyan]

13. Oh, for fuck's sake.

[elleng]

18. It's pretty clear that NO ONE won.

The mistake was for anyone to DECLARE. At least the party waited til the 'final' number was available.

[aspirant]

20. ...and now is the time for the party to respsct their candidates requests

[retrowire]

21. sorry about O'Malley

I wanted to tell you that personally and I really hope he runs next time.

you were one of the most gracious and considerate supporters on this site for him and I wanted to let you know that. you're awesome.

also I agree with you.

[elleng]

27. Thanks, retro.

[Skittles]

60. ditto from me

this race completely sucks

[SoapBox]

22. Democracy at work.

Well...someone else's version because it's not my version.

Ya gotta love the brass...McGuire just says "No".

Of all the nerve.

[retrowire]

24. "no." as she hops in her car with the hillary2016 plates

and drives off laughing.

[Uncle Joe]

25. This is no way to run a railroad much less a caucus.

Thanks for the thread, retrowire.

[retrowire]

26. No problem, Uncle Joe. nt

[tblue37]

39. But it is a way to railroad a caucus run. nt

[Uncle Joe]

40. There you go, tblue, thanks for completing the thought.

[John Poet]

28. So WHY do they keep the raw vote numbers secret?

What are they trying to hide? Why should the Democratic caucus be less transparent than the Republicans?

"Democrats have never released actual head counts, and McGuire said they would not be released this time, either. Determining a winner based on state delegate equivalents rather than head count is a key distinction between how the Democrats conduct their caucuses versus conducting a primary, she said."

[retrowire]

29. and the republican voter turnout was higher than ours

we should be fucking ashamed.

[nashville_brook]

140. if true.

[pnwmom]

74. The raw numbers can't ever be checked for accuracy, so what would be the point?

There are no paper ballots to check against.

The bigger issue is why some states like Iowa cling to this antiquated system. They should be abolished everywhere.

[jeff47]

88. Then the delegate numbers derived from those raw numbers can't be checked, either. (nt)

[pnwmom]

94. Duh. I've been saying all along that these caucuses stink, and this is PART of why.

They're non-verifiable, unrepresentative, non-inclusive, don't use secret ballots, and take way too much time.

But people here keep defending them, as if what happened this time was an aberration. It's not. This is how they work. It's the old "smoke filled room" without the smoke. They're why most states moved to primaries a long time ago, and there's no excuse for these things anymore.

[winter is coming]

146. A generous interpretation would be that McGuire doesn't want people to find out

that Bernie got a lot more votes overall in Iowa, but they weren't dispersed enough to get him a lot more delegates. Or maybe she doesn't want to risk the race flipping to HRC if they analyze the raw data and find data entry and math errors.

[mhatrw]

31. Alerting! It's not late breaking news that Clintons are cheaters!

[SammyWinstonJack]

93. Ha!

[GoneFishin]

34. Dr. Andy McGuire, Mrs. Hillary2016 license plate simply said, "No." Corruption always has that same

stink to it. Someone who blatantly has a horse in the race pretends they have done nothing wrong, but blocks every attempt to double check their work.

[pnwmom]

62. Having a sense of humor apparently is a disqualification for you. n/t

[AzDar]

38. K & R

[frylock]

41. Andy McGuire's car

[lastone]

43. Are you freaking kidding me!

Un-fucking-believable!

I'm with Bernie Sanders.

[cantbeserious]

45. HRC Has Learned Well From Karl Rove - Expect More Shenanigans Moving Forward

eom

[Fuddnik]

50. Well, Hillary is the one responsible for bringing toe-sucker Dick Morris into the White House.

Maybe her campaign has a slot for Rove on her staff.

[cantbeserious]

51. Based On The 08 Campaign - And Based On Allegiance To Wall Street - My Expectations Are Very Low

eom

[pnwmom]

71. Hillary had nothing to do with this. This is a standard, messy caucus.

My state has them and they're all chaotic, frustrating, and messy. The system is insane -- no paper ballots, just counting heads. When there are hundreds of heads to count it gets crazy. By the time you're done counting heads, some people have left to go to the bathroom or somewhere else, and your count is off, and you have to start all over.

You're dealing with human beings, not robots, and stuff happens. If you want to have less chaos, then have a primary. They are much simpler. I've lived in states with both and I hate caucuses.

[cantbeserious]

81. Still Believe In Unicorns

eom

[pnwmom]

97. No, that's your specialty.

And anyone else who thinks you can recount votes that weren't put on paper ballots.

[cantbeserious]

111. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Differently

eom

[Bernin]

46. The any woman for pres crowd can't be helped.

But, for the rest. This should be a huge wake up call. Even with Rovian dirty tricks and Katherine Harris style fraud Hillary will get soundly trounced in the General.

And, unfortunately turn congress further over to hostile hands.

[ChiciB1]

47. What Am I Not Surprised To Read This???? n/t

[pnwmom]

48. I warned everyone. If they didn't hate caucuses before the Iowa one, they would after.

They're all like this -- messy and frustrating, plus unrepresentative and non-inclusive.

We seem to be stuck with them in my state even though we voted -- through a referendum -- to switch to a primary. Our state party went to court to keep its caucuses -- and won.

[Bernin]

49. You're a Hillary supporter.

Can you see the comparisons to Dr. McGuire and Katherine Harris after reading her resounding "NO" and seeing her current license plate?

Just curious.

[pnwmom]

55. No. There is no way for anything to be recounted because people don't vote with

ballots. They vote with their feet, literally. They move to different corners of the room, and sometimes they move again. And people go to the bathroom or just give up and leave, messing up all the counts, and chaos ensures.

It's a crazy system but we, as a party, have decided to place enormous importance on Iowa's little exercise in 19th century democracy.

Did you read the Des Moines article in the OP? You should -- the whole thing.

And then take a look at the official caucus rules and just imagine . . . a bunch of volunteers trying to figure this out.

http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IDP-Caucus-Math-One-Pager.pdf

[questionseverything]

90. if there is no transparency then the process is undemocratic

you keep parroting the same line...there is nothing to recount

but there are raw numbers and the math to double check

which apparently neither the voters or non hc campaigns get to look at

[pnwmom]

92. The 'raw numbers" are meaningless because there is no way to check their accuracy.

If you see a 2 on one page and a 3 on another, what does that tell you? NOTHING. You don't know which, if either, is correct, or why. What they need are not raw numbers, but paper ballots --- LIKE THE REPUBS USE IN IOWA. Yes, the Repubs actually use verifiable paper ballots, but the Dems cling to their little danced around the gyms.

[questionseverything]

99. raw data= how many were there

how many hc supporters and how many bernie

so the math can be double checked

[pnwmom]

100. If they see a discrepancy, without paper ballots they still don't know which number is true.

[questionseverything]

103. there is tons of video all over iowa about precinct results

both candidates instructed their supporters to document so that point does not work

[pnwmom]

105. They could do recounts while they were there -- I saw a video where those present

voted against doing another one. But once the whole thing was over those papers were basically meaningless without any ballots to connect them to.

[questionseverything]

109. i saw that video too

the hc supporter was wrong to not actually count the people after the realignment....people could of left

i mistakenly defended it that night as no big deal but it was cheating

the people that by voice said no were wrong

non of this changes the fact that every citizen should be able to see the raw numbers and double check the math for themselves and hc's gal denying the sanders inquiry is just more flipping the bird to the liberal wing of the party

[pnwmom]

110. The Des Moines Register reporter observed it and said it was "normal mayhem,"

not cheating. I watched the whole thing, too, and cannot understand why anyone would say it was cheating.

They were dealing with hundreds of movable human bodies. Yes, there is a chance someone could have left, but the task they had was almost impossible. Every time they stopped to take a headcount of more than 400 people, they could have lost another few bodies. People go to the bathroom. People get sick of the whole thing and decide to leave. Doing an accurate headcount of more than 400 people takes TIME.

And the question is whether they were off by 3. There was a gap much larger than that between Hillary and Bernie, so the 3 votes wouldn't even have mattered.

No wonder the crowd was getting impatient.

A C-SPAN video (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus) was circulated widely on Facebook and Twitter with claims it was evidence of fraud. In truth, it was an example of the mayhem at some of the most crowded caucus sites, when nose counts differed between rounds of voting because some people left or the initial count was wrong. In this case, precinct No. 43 in Des Moines, a majority of voters, including Sanders backers, voted against a recount.

http://dmreg.co/1SW7scl

[questionseverything]

114. there was an 8 vote difference

if 9 hc supporters had left then the delegates were awarded incorrectly

we will never know since hc's person DID NOT COUNT THEM

get sick and leave,well then you do not get counted

that is how it is supposed to work

by taking the first count and then adding the omalleys and uncommitted ,hc's person guaranteed anyone that left would be fraudulently counted

it is that simple

[pnwmom]

116. No, it was 3. And our disagreement can never be resolved without paper ballots. n/t

[questionseverything]

118. no final count was hc 232,bernie 224...8 votes

the 3 you are talking about were 3 less people from the entire caucus count which started at 459 and ended at 456

the 456 number is the one we do not actually KNOW because hc's gal did NOT do a second count

you keep trying to make this about primary verses caucus when it is about fair play within a caucus

[pnwmom]

119. NO caucus with head counting of several hundred voters present can ever be as accurate as

you want it to be or as paper ballots would make it.

“Politics is a contact sport with few referees, so torturing your opponents with questions about the transparency of an election can be very harmful and damaging,” said Steffen Schmidt, a longtime political observer and professor at Iowa State University in Ames.

Discrepancies can occur in official elections, and caucuses are not even official election events run by the secretary of state's office, noted Dennis Goldford, a Drake University professor who closely studies the Iowa caucuses.

"The caucus system isn't built to bear the weight placed on it," he said. "There aren't even paper ballots (in the Democratic caucuses) to use for a recount in case something doesn't add up."

http://dmreg.co/1SW7scl

[ieoeja]

126. It sounds like they want to verify the math, not verify the counts. n/t

[pnwmom]

127. What is the point of verifying the math done to shaky counts? The whole

system is built on a ridiculously squishy system, where in the SAME ELECTION, one precinct delegate could represent 10 voters, and another precinct delegate could represent 50.

There is deep unfairness built into the whole system.

Every state should switch to primaries -- for the same reason that most states did, long ago: to ensure one-person-one-vote and to make the process as inclusive as possible. What goes on in Iowa and other caucus states (like mine) is the same "smoke filled room" that has always decided things -- except without the smoke.

The Iowa Repubs had a recount last time. Do you know why they could do that and we can't? Simple. For once, they are better than we are. They actually use paper ballots, and we don't. So there's nothing to recount. Nothing to verify.

So, at the very least, we should use paper ballots. But it would be better if all the caucus states just switched to primaries.

[joshcryer]

54. It's good to see people come around on caucuses...

...after Obama used them to great advantage in 2008.

The biggest thing for me is that they simply are done at a certain time. It's bad enough that people have a hard time getting registered and voting in states, it's another thing entirely for them to stop work, stop watching their kids, cancel their movie night, whatever other thing that they have going on, to go to the caucus at a specific time of day. It's bad.

At least with voting you can find a way to squeeze in going. With caucuses it's simply impossible for the vast majority of people, which is why caucuses do not have nearly the turnout that a regular poll would have, no matter how you cut it, they don't represent the people, especially the poor and minorities.

[pnwmom]

56. Yes. And it means my college student son can't vote for Bernie

because he's out of state. He can't vote there because then he couldn't take classes here in the summer (at the state resident rate). So he can't caucus or primary anywhere.

And people like my mother, in a wheelchair, can't vote either. They supposedly accommodate for disabilities but she can't spend 4 hours going through this kind of thing. And she'd be thrilled to vote for Hillary.

When it comes down to it, most people don't have several hours to spend in a gym, moving from corner to corner, listening to speeches and instructions, and holding up their hands every half hour or so for a vote.

I know we're spoiled most of the time here in WA because we have all-mail elections. Except for caucuses.

Last time Obama did very well in caucuses, so I think a lot of Bernie supporters were predisposed to like them. I hope more realize now that they aren't fair to ANYONE, but especially the voters.

[joshcryer]

57. They're arguably the core of establishment party politics.

We see all these local state officials making plays (like doing counts at their own wim, allowing one side to not do a recount, while one side calls for one on their side, etc), sides switching to another candidate for the simple fact of playing the numbers game and getting extra delegates.

And it's all because the people "in charge" are doing things through convoluted ways that assure that the entry to party politics is extremely difficult. People who are established in the local town council, local mayors, local county chairs, etc. People who probably have held the position in their town for years if not decades (this is especially true in rural areas).

[pnwmom]

58. My experience hasn't been anything nefarious -- just a lot of confusion

and time-wasting. And volunteers who don't really don't know what they're doing and just want to get it over with.

The Des Moines article touched on the kinds of things that can happen, and they remind of my experiences. For example, they mentioned a group of 400 voters, and not one of the 400 wanted to be the one in charge. So someone finally said okay, but then he didn't get the delegate count turned in on time.

At our first caucus, the candidate I voted for had enough votes to be assigned a delegate, but then none of us voters would volunteer for the next step: a full Saturday to be spent in a city three hours away. No one wanted to do that. Then a woman stepped up to volunteer to be our delegate -- even though she'd caucused for a different candidate. So we elected her -- and crossed our fingers she'd really represent the guy we voted for. What a ridiculous system.

[Bernin]

59. Well,

There is definitely some fraud in this video. The Hillary supporter doing the counting admits she just counted the new comers then a few minutes later when asked if she counted everyone not the just the new comers lies and says yes.

[pnwmom]

61. No, definitely NOT fraud. Just the typical chaos involving a lot of inexperienced volunteers,

including the Bernie people.

The Des Moines Register article in the OP specifically addressed this situation, in the quote below.

These are all tired, harried VOLUNTEERS trying to run a caucus, while voters walk out the door, go to the bathroom, and otherwise disappear.

They did count everybody, there were 3 fewer than before, and then there was a challenge. And then there was a vote on whether there should be a recount, and the crowd voted no.

The NAYS overwhelmingly voted not to have a recount and the challengers were angry about losing. They wanted to recount more than 400 people because they were afraid the count might be off by 3 or less. Even though the three votes wouldn't make any difference in the delegate assignment.

If the leaders instead had ordered a recount of those 400+ NAY-SAYers, they could have had a mutiny on their hands. Caucus goers only have so much patience, and they'd already been standing in line and at the caucus for hours. By the time the leaders got done counting those 400 AGAIN, they would have lost some more. And their count would have been off AGAIN.

Caucus leaders and attenders are human beings -- not robots.

From the article in the OP:

“Politics is a contact sport with few referees, so torturing your opponents with questions about the transparency of an election can be very harmful and damaging,” said Steffen Schmidt, a longtime political observer and professor at Iowa State University in Ames.

Discrepancies can occur in official elections, and caucuses are not even official election events run by the secretary of state's office, noted Dennis Goldford, a Drake University professor who closely studies the Iowa caucuses.

"The caucus system isn't built to bear the weight placed on it," he said. "There aren't even paper ballots (in the Democratic caucuses) to use for a recount in case something doesn't add up."

A C-SPAN video (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus) was circulated widely on Facebook and Twitter with claims it was evidence of fraud. In truth, it was an example of the mayhem at some of the most crowded caucus sites, when nose counts differed between rounds of voting because some people left or the initial count was wrong. In this case, precinct No. 43 in Des Moines, a majority of voters, including Sanders backers, voted against a recount.

Here are the OFFICIAL RULES. Now imagine you're a volunteer trying to follow them.

http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IDP-Caucus-Math-One-Pager.pdf

[GreydeeThos]

67. Hillary won the 2016 Iowa caucus

No amount of spin will change that.

[pnwmom]

72. +1. n/t

[hedgehog]

76. Then why the reluctance for a type of recount? (or in this case, checking the math)?

It just looks bad.

[LiberalElite]

77. What does she have to lose with a recount, hmmmmm? nt

[JudyM]

86. Also not very "progressive" of her to walk away from possibility of voter disenfranchisement. Nt

[pnwmom]

113. There is nothing to check the math against -- no paper ballots.

For example, there is that video that some people think proves there should have been a recount of more than 400 people at a precinct. (Though the people there at the time voted -- on the video -- against a recount.) The question was about a discrepancy of 3 votes, which was much much smaller than the gap between the candidates. How can that be resolved now that all the voters have gone home?

[winter is coming]

147. That's bullshit. There *is* something to check the math against.

Look at the raw vote totals. Re-do the math. Does it match the announced result? That is checking the math. And no one--no one--should be reluctant to check the math.

[pnwmom]

148. Bottom line: the only math that MATTERS is how the ACTUAL VOTERS VOTED. If they find

a discrepancy, they won't know how to re-do anything. All they'll know is they found 3 votes that might or might not be "off" in a particular district, but won't know whether the first number was right or the second, or neither.

Without verifiable paper ballots, there is nothing to check.

And Bernie has accepted this.


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]

149. That's not accurate. Calcuations can be checked. Whether the results of those calcuations

were correctly entered into the app can be checked. What can't be verified is whether the vote totals on the tally sheets are accurate. They would need to assume that those are correct. We'll never know whether or not they are, but that's no reason not to check the things that can be checked.

[pnwmom]

150. So you would be basing all that work on a GIGANTIC assumption that can't be checked.

Which is why the caucus system, at least as practiced in Iowa and WA, is NUTS and should be replaced. (Besides being deeply unfair, against the principle of one-person-one-vote, and excluding those who participate because of schedule or disability.)

Re-checking whatever numbers exist now (they've already been double-checked, with campaign witnesses) would give a false sense of the accuracy of what's there. If the numbers all 'check out' it will give the FALSE IMPRESSION that everything is fine, when it's not.

Caucuses should be eliminated and replaced by primaries with paper ballots. Period.

[winter is coming]

152. "All that work" has already been done once, based on that "gigantic" assumption.

A winner has been declared, based on that "gigantic" assumption. How would it be more valid to compound that assumption by assuming that things we can check are valid? To me, it would make more sense to at least correct what can be corrected.

It's obvious you've got a hateboner for the caucus system, but that's no reason to not check the calculations.

[pnwmom]

153. Then you should ask Bernie why he had his spokesman Tad Davine announce

they were not going to contest this.


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]

154. That was a statement made on Tuesday. Presumably, they've discovered some

discrepancies since then that they'd like to clarify.

[pnwmom]

155. Where have you seen Bernie's campaign flip-flopping on this issue?

[winter is coming]

156. Flip flopping?

I'm done with your bullshit.

[pnwmom]

157. You guys said it was flip-flopping

when, based on new information -- the final version of the TPP -- Hillary withdrew her support.

So I thought every change was flip-flopping in your opinion.

But the real reason you're "done" is because Bernie hasn't changed his position. He has issued no statement since Tuesday disclaiming what they said then.

[LiberalElite]

78. kicking nt

[Adrahil]

80. But wait... Since Hillary's narrow victory doesn't matter....

Why would it matter if Bernie wins by a narrow margin?

Oh yeah.... Hypocrisy. I forgot.

[randome]

108. No! No! Sanders won! Didn't you hear? And now his supporters are trying to take that away from him!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Dr. Strange]

82. I knew they shouldn't have let Steve Harvey announce the results.

[Vinca]

83. This is the dumbest form of democracy I've ever seen and if someone wants the confusion

cleared up, they should have it cleared up. Especially if the person announcing the outcome has a sticker on their car that indicates who they support and that candidate wins. They might not be hiding anything, but they sure make it look that way.

[pnwmom]

96. Yes, it is dumb. And, no, it cannot be cleared up. Ever. Not to anyone's satisfaction.

They don't use paper ballots so there is nothing that can be recounted. If they looked at the "raw numbers" and found a discrepancy there wouldn't be any way to know which number was correct.

This is why Bernie has decided go on. He's gotten his supporters all churned up and that's all he wanted to do.

He knows there's literally nothing that can be done to "fix" anything that happened or didn't happen at the caucus.

[Vinca]

98. They really should go to paper ballots.

This was the closest primary election in the history of the caucuses and there's no way to do a proper recount. If it had been a state-sponsored primary, it would have had an automatic recount in most states.

[pnwmom]

101. I agree. Automatic recount. I don't know why so many people here are determined

to defend caucuses, now that they understand more about how they work. This wasn't an aberration. It was the norm.

For the people who talk about community building, etc., -- fine. Maybe some people actually like being herded around and listening to speeches. But you can't then expect the same degree of accuracy you can get from verifiable paper ballots.

[roody]

87. I caucused in Iowa for Bernie.

This is Iowa. Overall the caucuses were done correctly. It was a tie. Let's put our energy into winning the subsequent primaries. The Iowa delegation will reflect the tie. If it doesn't then I'll believe there is significant corruption.

[pnwmom]

104. The delegates are 23 to 21. Not a tie. It worked out that way because of the way the

system counts certain precincts -- not because of a mistake. I read an explanation somewhere but can't remember the details. The gist is that it wasn't an aberration -- just one more example of "this is how we do it in Iowa."

[bkkyosemite]

102. Her saying no cast more doubt on who really won. There is no reason for her

to say no. This is a reasonable request. Numbers don't add up. I would question it also.

[warrprayer]

117. Kick

And recc!

[bullwinkle428]

124. As an Iowan who participated and shared his own messy experience with

all of DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511119828

I have to say...caucuses BLOW GOATS!

Time for the Iowa Democratic party to change it up and do it Republican style.

[slumcamper]

129. I caucused too. On balance I love it.

I love the energy and interaction with people who share my values, broadly speaking. Adrenalin rush!

We can certainly improve the process. I like the Republican practice of reporting raw numbers. But I like the Democrat's practice of preference grouping instead of secret balloting for a candidate. Ours is a very transparent, public declaration--a commitment of where one stands. Theirs enables them to hide and remain anonymous.

I would also like to see and option for people to commit solid support by absentee pledge. A lot of folks who work evening jobs, have parental responsibilities, etc. are shut out by the caucus system.

And SPACE is an issue. Everyone I've talked with has complained that their caucus site was too crowded. In my own case, 140 people, tables, and not enough chairs were packed into a room perhaps 800 sq. ft. About half were standing. It SUCKED.

[LiberalArkie]

133. Bernie probably won, but came away with almost half the delegates. I don't think they could

squeeze the massaging of the totals any more. It was obvious to me with McQuire in charge that there was a game a foot to skew the results. But you can only do so much without it being obvious. I am happy to settle with a tie and knowing that the Iowa party officials probably had to change their drawers a few times.

[KamaAina]

134. Is Iowa the new Florida?

[Marrah_G]

139. The Democratic Party should be ashamed at rejecting a recheck of the numbers

They should also be ashamed that the person who decides it is so blatantly biased.

I EXPECT this from the Republicans, not from the Democrats.

[NorthCarolina]

142. The party decides caucus rules. There's little doubt that, by design, the rules ALWAYS favor

the establishment candidate.

[k8conant]

158. Who knows? Incomplete results were reported as final:

iowademocrats.org has posted as FINAL results: http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-IDP-Final-Precinct-Caucus-Results-PrecinctCandidateResults1.pdf

I have been looking over these so-called final results and found the following precincts which awarded NO SDEs:

Fremont Riverton 2 CD
Hancock Precinct 3 1 CD
Kossuth CR 1 1 CD
Wapello Competine Twp 1 CD

Also I find it highly unlikely that in Black Hawk WL 4-1 that Clinton got 10 county delegates and Sanders got 0 so Hillary got 1.6428571430 SDEs and Bernie got 0

Of course, this list is what came AFTER the local caucus head counts and does NOT show those.

So, who knows?