How did Bernie's request for a recanvass in KY turn out? More HRC shenanigans?

[redstateblues]

[bravenak]

1. She added a few votes to her total

[larkrake]

2. no, but the computer glitch warranted the review and all is settled

no big deal

[Iliyah]

3. Certification at the end of May 2016

[brush]

4. Didn't work out for him. He still lost, and cost the taxpayers of KY thousands . . .

instead of paying for his own "recount", he asked for a re-canvass which the state has to pay for.

He's low on cash so, billing the state to try to get a 1-delegate swing in his favor is okay in the Sanders campaign, even though it would hardly close the near-300 delegate gap he trails by.

Some would call that Sanders shenanigans.

[Eric J in MN]

6. The citizens got a more accurate count.

We could have shorter polling place hours to save money, but that would also mean a less accurate reflection of the public.

[FourScore]

7. When an election is that close, recanvassing is standard operating procedure.

Most states have an automatic re-canvass. Re-canvassing makes more sense because it's all that is warranted. It has nothing to do with money. It's called democracy at work. Something I would expect Republicans to balk at, but not a democrat.

Your comment is ignorant and ugly.

[brush]

8. You sound ignorant of the fact that re-canvassing costs the state. A recount is paid for . . .

by the candidate who wants it.

That was all over 1 delegate. We have proportional apportionment in the Dem primaries so 1 damn delegate affects the race that he's behind by nealrly 300 how?

He wasted taxpayer money over that?

And still lost.

[FourScore]

9. He did not waste taxpayer money. He utilized the law that provides a re-canvass.

I am not ignorant of this at all. I just think your criticism is not towards Bernie, it is towards democracy. Why would any candidate disregard a provision which allows a re-canvass, but pay for an unnecessary (and much more extensive AND expensive) recount? It makes no sense, unless you hate democracy.

[brush]

10. Oh sorry. I though he cared so much for the people he wouldn't spend . . .

thousands of their tax dollars over a 1-delegate swing when he's behind by nearly 300 delegate, and still lose.

How could I have been so mistaken?

[FourScore]

11. I would support any candidate of any party requesting a re-canvass when an election is that close.

I don't care what the numbers are. Every vote counts.

[snowy owl]

13. Prove that. "Thousands?" "Low on cash" Sound like ass-umptions to me.

[brush]

14. I was being consevative, it was probably more than thousands

And WTH is he, who supposedly cares so much for the people, doing charging the the taxpayers to do a re-canvass instead of paying for a recount himself if he's not low on cash.

We all know the spigot of $27 donations has just about dried up since his chances of winning have.

But cheer up, we'll still win the general. Either Clinton, or Sanders, will wipe the floor with Trump who knows little but how to insult his opponents. Just picture how that'll work when he gets a tough foreign policy question in the real Dem v repug debates.

It'll be deja vu all over again — "Please proceed, Mr. Trump".

[redstateblues]

5. I'm sure there was great disappointment from BSS that once again

They threw shit at the wall and nothing stuck

[Garrett78]

12. I lost all patience for the grand conspiracists the night of the Indiana Primary.

Because of this nonsense: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511895680