Sanders Regains Stolen Colorado Delegate

[Time for change]

Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations. The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record. Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29755029/colorado-democrats-admit-mistake-that-cost-bernie-sanders

The event discussed in this Denver Post article only results in a net gain for Sanders of two delegates. As such, it may not seem to be a big issue. But I think it is because it clearly shows what the Clinton campaign and her supporters in the Democratic Party think of election integrity.

This was not just a “mistake”, as the article tactfully puts it. It may or may not have originally been just a mistake. But the Democratic Party knew about it for several weeks and did nothing to correct it. The Clinton campaign also knew about it but said nothing about it. Nothing was done to correct the “mistake” until an independent party, the Denver Post, informed the Sanders campaign about it. That makes it a stolen delegate rather than merely a mistake, regardless of whether or not it was initially just a mistake.

As such, it should provide even further urgent reason for a thorough investigation, including extensive hand counted audits to compare with machine counts, in all states where evidence of election fraud exists, whether that evidence consists of exit poll discrepancies with the official vote count, inadequately explained voter purging, disappearing Sanders votes associated with electronic machines, fake audits that add votes to Clinton and subtract them from Sanders to make the hand counts match the machine counts, or whatever.

[hobbit709]

1. By hook or by crook is the Clinton campaign motto.

[LWolf]

2. But mostly by crook. nt

[NewImproved Deal]

3. Great news, Thanks! All we can do to monkey-wrench the Coronation...

[link:|

[Joob]

4. Wait, do they really expect us to stay in this incompetent party if Bernie doesn't win?

Because they think everything is fine.
They think..
Voting Purging?
Disappearing votes?
Exit poll discrepancies?
fake audits?
Voter Suppression?
Eehh all nonsense!

I'd rather build a new party than stay in this one if Bernie doesn't win.

Bernie is fighting for this party even though it opposes him. If he wins great! We can continue to work on fixing it.
But if he doesn't win, this party clearly does not have my values. And the majority would want things the same.
So why stick around trying to fix what some people don't see as broken?

[Go Vols]

5. It ain't what it used to be

In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the ‘90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.

Before this, from 1932-1976, the Democratic Party as a whole was far more progressive. The issues and approaches advocated today by Bernie Sanders were considered mainstream Democratic ideas by Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, and even many moderate Republicans. It was common to support strict financial regulation, liberal immigration, social services for the poor, and progressive tax policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

[Time for change]

16. Excellent point

It's not at all what it used to be, and when your Party or your government fails to consider our interests then it's time to form a new one.

[Time for change]

8. I agree absolutely

The problem is that it takes a great deal of effort and money to build a new party, and there are so many obstructive tactics that the powers that be will use to stop it, including our corporate news media.

On the other hand, in a sense a 3rd party is almost formed, with Bernie at the head of it. I believe that he has enough of a following that running as an independent against Clinton and Trump he will win, maybe by a landslide. He is far more popular nationwide than either of them, and he may take more votes away from Trump than Clinton, because although Bernie will make an infinitely better president, they both have something in common that voters are very hungry for -- anti-establishment credentials.

Bernie has exhibited great courage his whole career, including his decision to run for president against the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. It will take even greater courage for him to break with the Democratic Party and run as in independent. But what the hell, he's been and independent most of his career. What are they going to do him, try to kick him out of the Senate? Put up an establishment candidate to run against him in Vermont? Good luck with that!

Also, Bernie may feel honor bound not to run as an independent because he promised not to. But the explanation he gave was that he did not want to risk a Republican presidency by taking votes away from Hillary. But I believe it can be shown that, far from increasing the likelihood of a Republican president, his running as an independent will decrease it. Hillary is such a weak candidate even now, and as more revelations come out about the FBI investigation she is likely to get weaker. She is currently running even with Trump in the swing states of FL, PA, and OH.

If and when Bernie runs as an independent, unlike most of the Democratic primaries, independents will be allowed to vote -- and with independents voting, neither Hillary or Trump will be able to compete with him, even now, and the more the public gets to know him the more popular he will become.

So for the near future, Bernie is our only chance to avoid either a corporate president or a crazy racist misogynist president for the next 4 years. I hope we can convince him to do it.

[Duval]

10. Two here thinking the same, Joob.

I have been sick of this entire DLC thing for too long, plus her Coronation bs. I hardly recognize the Democratic Party and I've been a Democrat since 1960. Will they recognize this disparity? I wonder if they even care.

[Progressive dog]

6. So the Sanders campaign couldn't bother reading the email

that was sent right after the error was found. The Clinton campaign did read their's and discussed it with the state party.
So what we have is another created controversy from the Bernie campaign over voting.
It's to be expected when they manufactured the "Hillary is unqualified, she said it about me" without ever reading or maybe understanding that she never said that.
Or maybe they did read the email.

[Time for change]

9. Sanders was not notified of the stolen delegate

Where the hell did you get that idea from? You just make it up out of your head?

[Progressive dog]

11. You should read the article

The State committee says he was and he did get the delegates. This is becoming like the theft of Hillary's data from the DNC, where Bernie's campaign tried to blame the DNC. Bernie did grudgingly apologize to Hillary for his campaign's actions.

[Time for change]

13. He only got them after the Denver Post discovered the stolen delegate and notified him of it

At that point, since the theft was obvious and made public by the Denver Post, the Democratic Party had no choice but to give him back his stolen delegate.

[Progressive dog]

15. His campaign has a long history of not telling the truth

I'll go with the state party who said

Still, Palacio suggested the campaigns received the correct data just days after the caucus in an e-mail from party officials. "It was our assumption they were using that data," he said.

The Clinton campaign realized the discrepancy between the public data and the official results and discussed it with the party Friday, Palacio said.

[Time for change]

22. See post # 12 on this issue, which I fully agree with

Besides that, it doesn't make sense that the Sanders campaign was notified but didn't read whatever communication was sent to them. You can't really believe that.

And even in the very unlikely event that the Sanders campaign was notified but didn't read their e-mail as you say, the Democratic Party still had an obligation to notify the public about the "mistake", rather than just let the results stand as is for several weeks. If the Denver Post hadn't reported this, I doubt very much that it would ever have been corrected.

[senz]

20. You obviously didn't read the article

it said the Clinton campaign was aware that they had been credited with delegates they hadn't won but didn't say anything about it, just let it stand, a false result.

That is not an honest response. No wonder she's widely viewed as untrustworthy.

[Progressive dog]

21. There was no result, the delegates were not yet awarded

It's easy to understand. It's right at the article beginning

Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected

Projected is not a synonym for awarded so it wasn't me that didn't read the article.

[pmorlan1]

12. Correct the Record ? LOL

In the original article and even in the 1st revised piece this was what appeared:

Palacio said he didn't tell the Sanders camp about the divergent numbers "because it didn't necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary's campaign."

A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment.

Now evidently in yet another revision to this piece we see this being added in:

Still, Palacio suggested the campaigns received the correct data just days after the caucus in an e-mail from party officials. "It was our assumption they were using that data," he said.

I don't believe it for a minute. I like the phrasing..Palacio suggested. LOL Yeah, I bet he did. I bet he got in plenty of trouble for his initial comments and now he's backpeddling because he didn't have a good reason for this discrepancy when it was first uncovered by the Post. Hillary supporters can believe what they want but I'll go with the original story before they had time to concoct this "new information".

[Progressive dog]

18. Sanders got the correct number of delegates at the next step and the

state party said

Palacio downplayed the discrepancy, saying the site with the results — coloradocaucus.org — "is only used for reporting to the press.

"It wasn't used in an official way," he added. "So we didn't go back and actually look at the website versus the math sheets."[/div

It would be nice if the Sanders campaign stopped playing the victim card until they are actually a victim.

[pmorlan1]

19. Oh They Finally Got The Correct Number of Delegates

No thanks to the Colorado Democratic Party or the "honest" Clinton campaign. Reporting incorrect numbers to the press in their website caused them to report incorrect numbers to the public and gave a skewed view of the number of delegates won and reported on in the press. Of course Palacio would downplay the discrepancy. LOL They kept this knowledge to themselves for 5 weeks until the Denver Post reported on it and you actually have the nerve to post what you did. Shame on you.

[coffeeAM]

7. Very Crooked!

[GreatGazoo]

14. the shameful state of our democracy on full display

[kgnu_fan]

17. kick