Sanders campaign requests Kentucky vote recanvass

[alp227]

Source: AP

ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) — Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign is requesting a recanvass in Kentucky's presidential primary, where he trails Hillary Clinton by less than one-half of 1 percent of the vote.

The Sanders campaign says it will ask the Kentucky secretary of state to have election officials review electronic voting machines and absentee ballots from last week's primary in each of the state's 120 counties.

Clinton holds 1,924-vote lead over Sanders out of 454,573 votes cast. The Associated Press had not called the race, despite Clinton's slight lead, in the event that Sanders might ask to recanvass the vote.

A recanvass is not a recount but a review of the voting totals.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/042a334061664e0ca202ccfe0a2ffab6/sanders-campaign-requests-kentucky-vote-recanvass

[leftofcool]

1. Sure Bernie, as long as you pay for it. You won't get my KY tax money for it.

[catnhatnh]

7. I guess you didn't read the linked article

because, yes, your tax money will be used.

[JDPriestly]

33. I'm so pleased that Bernie is demanding a review because in 2004

I was extremely disappointed that Kerry was not more aggressive with regard to making sure that votes were accurately and fairly counted especially in Ohio.

Recounts and reviews are part of the cost of democracy.

Look what we lost because no accurate recount was done in 2000 of the votes in Florida until around 9/11. I don't know whether you know that story or not. You can google it. Gore won the popular vote by a large number. The news consortium tabulated the votes and according to every counting method I liked, Gore won in Florida too.

Of course, these results were announced on 9/11 or shortly thereafter so they were completely lost on the inattentive American public.

Feel the Bern!

[forest444]

74. True - but how could he possibly?

Dubya, if you remember, was already dusting off Continuity-of-Government contingency plans - complete with Blackwater shock troops - in case hard evidence of Blackwell's tampering with the Ohio electronic vote was discovered (and it almost was).

I remember being disappointed in Kerry at the time - until the C.O.G. revelations came out. Sometimes there's really nothing you can do.

[JDPriestly]

75. When you think there is nothing to do, you keep doing -- quietly

and persistently.

GWB was an imposter. History will condemn him for it. He led our country to a disaster. He did not just lie about the war. He lied about our economy. He lied and lied.

Kerry should have had the moral strength to speak out no matter what. He should have demanded a recount.

You do what is right, not what is easy.

[forest444]

76. Thou art a braver soul than I, JD.

Perhaps there are still enough men and women in the Armed Forces brass brave enough to prevent him from pulling something like that. Because fighting the good fight, in that situation, would have required nothing less.

[laserhaas]

89. Concur - Never give up - Never surrender

Especially when the opponent keeps winning - with issues of bad faith

[frylock]

79. Oh, yes, he will get your KY tax money.

Just like independents foot the bill for your closed primaries. Fucking deal.

[JudyM]

2. All right. Finally challenging DNC shenanigans.

[Betty Karlson]

63. Bernie taking his gloves off. * sigh of relief*

[sharp_stick]

3. At those numbers I would expect that to be

almost automatic.

[Laser102]

4. What is the point? I mean seriously? Will this change the election? No.

[onehandle]

5. More taxpayer and party money, down the drain. Just send it to Donald Trump, sore losers. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Clintons waste billions of taxpayer dollars...deregulation, wars, scandals

A simple re-canvass is chump change
considering the scandals Clinton's
have created resulting in untold
sums in legal fees and investigations.

Don't you care about election integrity?

[retrowire]

19. no, they care about one liners and calling all Bernie supporters losers

Know who else likes to call people losers all the time?

XD

[CherokeeDem]

20. None of those scandals to my knowledge...

ever produced any proof the Clintons committed any wrong doing and most were 'scandals' raised by their enemies. Bill Clinton was wrongly impeached by a bunch of pasty Repubs who were guilty of far more than he was. The monies spent were wasted by the Republicans.

I do not condone Clinton's behavior in the Lewinsky matter, nor do I live under the illusion that he or Hillary are perfect but enough.

Sanders has done well... but it's over. All he looks like now is a whiny bastard who got a taste of power and doesn't want to let go.

[trudyco]

25. Maybe you need to start reading up on Haiti and the Clintons

Look up Hillary as SOS and USAID projects.
Then tell me big money was not wasted while on her watch.

[CherokeeDem]

27. I've read all that....

nothing proved as far as scandals... all speculation. Just because you or I don't agree with how some of these monies were spent, doesn't make it wrong or illegal.

And big money's been wasted on everyone's watch... including the millions spent by Sanders.

[trudyco]

55. You are correct. Nothing has been proven yet.

However, the thread was about wasting taxpayer money. I contend that in Haiti USAID taxpayer money was wasted. Also, Hillary as SOS managed to displace several BILLION dollars. More waste. So, yeah, looking closer at a state's primary vote counting is chumpchange in comparison.

[left-of-center2012]

29. Sex in the Oval Office with an intern should be enough for impeachment

I feel sorry for the embarrassment Hillary had to endure.
But let's recount those votes.
After all, Clinton's friend was in charge of the vote count.

[JDPriestly]

36. We who support Bernie support him because of his personal

integrity, but more importantly because of his progressive ideals and ideas.

Even if Hillary wins the majority of delegates or even of votes, she will not have won the battle of ideas, the battle for integrity in government.

Those of us who like Bernie really like him. There will be no second best or alternative to Bernie. Never.

Hillary fans are going to have to learn to put up with us because either Bernie will win or his movement will win. It's not going to happen that we just happily fold into the Hillary horde.

We are Democrats. We are working people, the very young and retired people, and we want our party back from the oligarchs and the comfortable.

[MyNameGoesHere]

52. your republican congress had a lot to do with that

but it's easier to forget who the real enemy isn't it? Or don't you care about that?

[PufPuf23]

65. What if Sanders really won Kentucky and not Clinton?

Even if Clinton, as expected, becomes the Democratic nominee for POTUS, don't the Democratic voters of Kentucky deserve an accurate count of their vote?

[blackspade]

6. Awesome.

I was hoping for this.
There should be a complete recount though.
A review will be conducted by our Corpra-Dem Lundergan-Grimes who stayed 'neutral' by shilling for Clinton here in KY.
I have little faith in her 'objectivity.'

[Gman]

8. Oh for fuck's sake. Theres less than a fraction of one delegate

at stake. There is no good reason for this except to tear down and destroy and elect Trump.

[askeptic]

11. Offs. How does a recount for delegates elect Trump?

or "tear down" anything? (oh for fuck's sake)

[Gman]

13. No matter the outcome of the vote recount

He will NOT pick up more delegates (do the math). Why bother if he wants to be constructive and beat Trump.

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. Oh for fuck's sake... election integrity much???

[Gman]

15. Wrong answer

He will not pick up more delegates. Election integrity has nothing to do with him destroying and trying to elect Trump.

[trudyco]

37. If you can see past your nose

you will know Sanders supporters have been very concerned with Election Integrity. We have been seeing the same patterns as was seen in the Bush elections. Also, there has been a lot of the traditional disenfranchisement going on. Bernie supporters do not believe a nominee should be the standard bearer for the Democratic party if they are cheating to get the votes. We believe every voter should be allowed to easily vote and that every vote should be counted accurately. This goes way beyond this specific primarie's delegate count.

There are concerns with Hillary, the biggest is her being involved in an FBI investigation for something that is obviously gross negligence. The fact that she hid the emails, then handed over only a portion, and tampered with some of them leads many Bernie supporters to feel she is not honorable and would stoop to cheating. The way she has skirted campaign laws is another example of her lack of ethics (though it is not illegal). The Clinton Foundation is another very big concern. The Clintons had no compunction in taking money from Republicans and foreign donors who were practically giving blood money. Hillary hid much of what she did against promises to Obama. So she lies, easily, to the President. It seems quite possible she is gaming the voting process. We want a fair democracy.

Yeah, we want to shed light on the Clintons. I used to think they were victims, too. They probably were except I'm not sure about Whitewater. However, what they did once Bill left the Whitehouse is jaw dropping.

I don't know if this will shed light on election fraud, but at least it's a start.

[Gman]

87. No, Bernie supporters couldn't care less about the emails or election integrity

They care about damaging Hillary and anything that does that. As for election integrity, it's an enormously convenient excuse for a candidate that doesn't appeal to 3/4 of the Democratic Party because, among other things, he's not a Democrat.

[JDPriestly]

38. Sounds like the friends-of-Hillary are afraid of the recount result.

We need the recount.

[Gman]

43. Deathly afraid of losing

.25% of a delegate. Just terrified.

[GreatGazoo]

50. so you admit it

[Gman]

62. LMAO!

[riversedge]

54. Per the OP--the state---aka -the KY taxpayer will foot the bill for Sanders ego trip.

[frylock]

80. Didn't independent voters in the state foot the bill for your closed primaries?

[billhicks76]

58. That's A Bit Dramatic

We all know voting machines are corrupted. The more attention to that the better. Kentucky has a long history of using them against Democrats. You may love your candidate to death and may fear Trump to no end but voting integrity trumps them both.

[Gman]

86. No, it trumps nothing

This is all about his ego, pandering to his followers and effing up the Democratic Party.

Voting integrity is a lame, transparent and sorry excuse.

[billhicks76]

91. Well Your Opinion Is Even Lamer

And that's beyond obvious.

[askeptic]

9. Hallaryites afraid of fair election?

Sanders has every right to do this, and it is essentially for one delegate. To Bernie, every delegate counts since he's behind. I'm sure every Hillaryite would support this if the situation were reversed.

from the AP:
Clinton and Sanders both picked up 27 delegates in Kentucky and one remaining delegate will be allocated in the sixth congressional district, which includes Frankfort and Lexington. The delegate will be awarded based on final vote tallies and Clinton currently leads Sanders by a slim margin of about 500 votes in that district.

The recanvass is conducted by the state at no cost to the campaign.

A tip in the statewide vote in Sanders' favor would not guarantee him that last delegate. But if a recanvass were to determine he actually received more votes than Clinton in the sixth congressional district, Sanders could earn the last remaining delegate that Clinton would otherwise receive.

[Gman]

16. No. That's nothing but redirection and won't work

The primary in KY is over.

[askeptic]

22. It's not over according to the AP

I agree it's just one delegate - so what's the BFD to you? If you're convinced nothing changed, then why do you care?

[Duval]

17. Good!

And I believe we should get someone from the UN to monitor our elections. There have been too many irregularities and the Corporate Media hasn't helped (what's new?).

[LittleGirl]

21. With a total that close

I thought it was automatic. We really need paper ballots. Every other country in the world uses paper ballots.

[bbgrunt]

24. I thought it was automatic also. If it isn't, it should be automatic. It is important

to get the correct results regardless of how many delegates are affected.

[brush]

32. In a close election where one wins the office and one goes home . . .

a recanvass/recount should be automatic but in Kentucky with maybe a 1 delegate swing because of proportional apportionment, what's the point?

They both get about the same amount of delegates and it doesn't close Clinton's 300 delegate gap.

Sanders is not handling the fading days of his campaign gracefully, in fact, he's looking more and more like a grouchy, sore loser.

Too bad. He losing admirers too.

[JonLeibowitz]

35. The point is the one delegate. I thought that was obvious?

[brush]

64. Did you leave off the sarcasm gif?

Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

One delegate does not close the 300 delegate gap Clinton has over Sanders.

[JDPriestly]

42. It's Hillary who is acting like, as LBJ used to say, a "nervous Nellie"

about her delegates and her votes.

For a "winner," for someone who thinks she is ahead, Hillary and her supporters are being very ungracious, very grasping and very mean.

That meanness, that lack of grace, the grabbing and taunting, say something very bad about Hillary and are repulsing Bernie supporters.

This is a bad sign for Hillary.

You hear a lot about "bad losers," but being a "bad winner," that is a gloating, unkind winner in politics is the worst mistake. You end up alienating people whose votes you will eventually need. Barack Obama set the example of a good winner, someone who reaches out with kindness to those he beat in a contest.

Hillary is making huge mistakes at this stage of her campaign. She will regret the nastiness that she is sponsoring and encouraging. Bernie could still win, and he has definitely done well enough that he should have a say in any White House configuration as well as in the policies that a potential Democratic government follows. And, should she "win," she needs to make clear that there will be room for Bernie and his ideas and proposals in her administration.

This is not a winner-take-all primary. It is proportional and for good reason. If the ultimate "winner" is not inclusive, many in the Party will not support that winner. It is just how life works.

Winners must be gracious.

[brush]

67. Way to turn logic on it's head

Sanders is the one calling for a recount/recanvass with maybe one delegate in the balance when he's losing by 300 delegates.

That's called being ungracious sore loser.

What's the effing point? He's not going to catch her with 1 delegate.

[LittleGirl]

90. well said.

'08 was a disaster for her and I'm not impressed at all with her attitude this time around either.

[SunSeeker]

23. What a waste of taxpayer money!

But then again, this is Bernie Sanders, who loves him that big trillion-dollar boondoggle, the F-35.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

[Stevepol]

26. Wonderful!!!! Wonderful!!!! I can't believe it!!

This has got to be the first time that a politician has ever actually asked that the voting machines be checked and the count verified. There have been recounts but not instigated by a candidate. Kerry refused to do it in 04 despite clear evidence of machine malfeasance. I think it was Dodd who advised him not to worry about the voting machines, saying something like, "We've checked into this and there's nothing to it."

We'll see how this is handled. If it's anything like the way the request of Beth Clarkson here in Wichita KS to be allowed to check the voting scroll from the touch screens in Sedgwick County the powers that be will pretend to be concerned but in the end do nothing and if they are sued in court they will counter-sue. They will claim they can't do it now for some obscure reason. They will claim there's a law that doesn't allow such a recount after a certain date, etc., etc., etc.

I hope this means that the Bernie campaign is giving a look at some of the ridiculous results in the primary. While he's at it, he should ask for a recount of the MA results where I feel sure Bernie won and by a considerable margin and where the paper ballots are still there waiting to be recounted BY USING HUMAN EYES AND HANDS.

[Igel]

77. It's less than that.

The process on election night is simple: All the info gets counted for preliminary results. Meh.

Then the official canvassing takes place. They check to see if the machines were secured, and then count the totals registered. That might mean having the totals shown on the machine or simply having a computer re-poll the machines' memories.


A recanvassing is useful only in case somebody miscopied a number, if a machine was skipped or a machine was double-counted. These things happen.

It's not a recount (which is a silly idea for e-voting anyway), except for the provisional ballots.

[Stevepol]

83. Thanks for reminding me. I misunderstood what re-canvassing is for.

But I disagree with your idea of a "recount" being a silly idea "for e-voting."

An audit should be required for every electoral result obtained on electronic voting machines. As one expert on electronic voting machines has pointed out, the machines are "trivially easy" to maliciously program or rig or what have you. And through the years there have been many elections where the statistical anomalies or common sense would tell you that the whole election should have been recounted by hand. Unless you can verify the vote, it's impossible to have a democracy.

But I suppose you were saying that an e-vote is impossible to recount anyway since it's just in cyberspace and all you can do is have it go thru the same process again which, unless the machine is broke or has been re-programmed, will give you the same result, whether or not the result accurately reflects the intent of the voter.

So thanks again.

[lostnfound]

84. I don't know what a recount would cost but funds would be plentiful

A whole lot of people would be glad to fund a recount

[beachbumbob]

28. Ego out of control...makes no difference on delegates...sanders on

Power trip and wasting some one else's money...he learned that from wife Jane and her debacle at Burlington ...

[msongs]

30. every primary and undemocratic caucus bernie won should be investigated for fraud on his part nt

[trudyco]

44. Our caucus was very democratic, except it was closed.

Not many youngsters in my precinct. Not many in the whole school where numerous precincts caucusing were held simultaneously. Very, very strong Bernie Sanders votes. But I would absolutely welcome investigation of any primary. The statistics are showing fraud and they are showing in Pima county Arizona to be in early voting vote counting if I understand the math right. How did you feel about the 2004 vote counting msongs?

[SunSeeker]

41. So you only want to look at places Sanders lost. Typical. nt

[SunSeeker]

48. And yet you only list elections Sanders lost. nt

[reddread]

69. states where the Sanders machine strikes fear in the hearts of political ladder monkeys, states like

[SunSeeker]

78. None are "in question" except by the Sanders campaign.

And the Sanders campaign only "questions" elections they lose.

[FlaGranny]

39. Amazing that

so many are not interested in fair and accurate elections and think that double checking a sqeakingly close election is a waste of time. Elections should count every single vote and make sure the count is 100% accurate. It's a funny thing to have to explain to Democrats.

[trudyco]

46. Yeah, kind of depressing

Like they purposely don't want to hear you and try to change the subject.

[MisterP]

61. if they admit shenanigans they'll have to admit Katherine Harris, and then they can't scream NADER

[lostnfound]

85. It's nauseating that they really don't care

[nashville_brook]

93. especially considering DU was created as a response to 2000 election fraud (move along)

nothing to see here.



anymore.

[RealAmericanDem]

40. If Bernie WINS he will pick up ONE delegate.

I'm sure it will be worth the taxpayer money. Desperate and pointless move.

[Agnosticsherbet]

49. I think you forgot the sarcasm smilie.

[trudyco]

53. So it's about honest vote counting for most of us happy to hear this news.

Several people here with low post counts (and at least one high one) seem to say:
1) Waste of taxpayers money
2) Bernie is a sore loser, big ego, whiner, being wasteful - did I miss any?
3) It's a waste of time because it's only one delegate

OK. Got that. Quit repeating your narrative of the day. What about vote counting accuracy? What about potential election fraud? You never answer the other side's point. We saw certain statistical anomalies in 2000 and more so in 2004. Bush cheated. We are now seeing it in spades in the 2016 primaries. Doesn't that bother you? Aren't you for democracy? Or is it all about Hillary winning?

And the delegate count must matter on Hillary's side. Her minions went through a lot of trouble to bypass democratic party rules in Nevada just to get back the two delegates Bernie's people manage to snag in the second convention because Hillary conventioneers were so unenthusiastic to not even show up (and so Bernie won the two delegates fairly).

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. A recanvas is a review of the voting totals, sort of like checking your receipt in a restaurant

It is unlikely to affect the final outcome but could affect the awarding of a single delegate still up for grabs.

[pmorlan1]

57. Curious Comments

I haven't seen one comment by a Hillary supporter who is happy to see this recanvass. I find that curious because if they believe that nothing is amiss then they more than anyone should be happy to have it proven. Instead I see them attacking this recanvassing and talking about Bernie getting another delegate. Do you Hillary supporters believe the count is wrong and that there will be changes or do you believe the count is accurate and should be proven so?

[frylock]

81. Lots and lots of bleating about taxes.

Conservatives love to whinge about taxes.

[MohRokTah]

59. Sore loser. eom

[urbuddha]

60. Bernie or Bust !

Always Bernie. Never, you know who.

[Cryptoad]

66. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

somebody cheating us again,,,,,,,, geez and yall sit around and wonder why u lost by 3Million votes +........

[Uncle Joe]

68. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, alp227.

[aspirant]

70. If it is so expensive that Hills and her cheerleaders

are screaming about 1 lousy delegate, then let Hills come forth and graciously award that delegate to Bernie, problem solved.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. Fine bunch of Democrats we make. Sore Loser???

Next thing you know we'll start mocking people who have the audacity to appeal court rulings. The State can do no wrong, whatever it says should be taken as the word of God - the State can not make mistakes, it is infallible. Anyone for bringing back divine rule?

[jmowreader]

72. What will Sanders' team do if the vote actually swings more toward Clinton?

[FlaGranny]

92. If the final count is accurate

they'll say "good work" and go on.

[flashsmith99]

82. good luck auditing an electronic machine

With a statewide election this close, it is almost certain that malware was installed on the electronic voting machines, because that's what the malware does, give a slight edge to the chosen candidate so the results are within the margin of error of the polls. They need to pull the proms from the voting machines and electronically compare them with the master prom, if the state even keeps a master prom. Otherwise, there is no auditing, the machines will spit out the same answers every time. Bernie should be/should have been telling his followers to vote with paper. Kinda late now.

[laserhaas]

88. Dam Straight -

It's about time

[Douseeme]

94. He can try

But it won't lead anywhere.