McCaskill just said that

[tishaLA]

she talked to volunteers last night who said that they got reports of delegates being given to people who weren't viable in the first round but were after the second round, in direct violation of the rules of the caucus.

What a mess this is.

[Cha]

1. Just read the thread.. so is McCaskill right?

[W_HAMILTON]

2. That's definitely what happened, which I thought was against the rules as well.

But then someone here said that, no, if a candidate was not viable after the first alignment, they could still try to gather support in the second (final) alignment and therefore become viable, which made no sense whatsoever to me.

[tishaLA]

4. Either way, isn't it ridiculous

that we have to do research to figure out which side is right in this contretemps? If this is what transparency looks like, smokey back rooms look a lot less bad.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

3. I thought that non-viable first round candidates could become viable

by picking up support from other non-viable campaigns?

That would not be a rule violation, as I understand the rules.

[LeftTurn3623]

5. I saw that on TV

Biden group wasnt and said they will get there by the 2nd round

[Peacetrain]

6. She has it wrong then.. Once viable you cannot change your vote..but if two groups

who are both unviable come together and they make that magic number and choose one person to support..then they are now viable and can have a delegate.

that is why we caucus..otherwise it is just a primary..

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

8. Right. You are in Iowa (so should know better than I) but that's my understanding as well.

Only supporters of "viable" candidates got "locked" in round one.

"Non-viable" candidates could become "viable" by getting supporters of other non-viable candidates to come over to their campaigns.

McCaskill seems confused on this point.

[Peacetrain]

9. Totally understandable why she would be confused

We get confused.. especially this year with the change up by putting a primary in the middle of the caucus.. (that is what the ballots are about).. We spent quite a bit of time last night explaining it to each other ..

[dsc]

14. No it isn't

unlike her I am not paid to know this stuff and I knew it. It was literally being done on air while she was covering this last night. You literally had a Warren group which wasn't viable (it has missed by one voter) after the first round become viable after the second. Again, done on camera directly in front of her.

[slumcamper]

12. How it worked in my precinct

Groups formed; viability threshold of 15 percent of total registered attendees was determined; headcounts in each group took place; preference cards, each uniquely numbered, were distributed with instructions DO NOT SIGN; opportunity was given for anyone to change their mind and realign; groups offered speeches to persuade uncommitteds or nonviables to realign to another group (effectively, if one group was a few people short of viability, soft supporters in other groups that were viable could defect); cards were signed and the attendee became locked in. Final counts were based on signed cards (the "paper trail&quot , those were collected and all accounted for; delegates were awarded to viable groups according to formula; those delegates and others from other precincts in the county will meet at the county convention in late March; the process then transitions to district convention, then to state, with viability of preference groups determined along the way. Interestingly, my preference group chose as a delegate an attendee whose group (Tom) was not viable and who joined us.

I think Claire is a bit confused, but who isn't??!!

[dsc]

15. Now your precinct did it wrong

viable groups were not to be poached from.

[slumcamper]

17. Until the card was actually SIGNED, anyone could go anywhere.

Technically speaking. In fact, nobody did. Even though the Warren group was 2 people shy of the magic "24," nobody would "help" them. Most of that group split toward Bernie and Amy. A few to Pete. None to Biden.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

18. Sounds like your group evaded the rules.

Supporters of viable were not supposed to be able to realign.

Telling people not to sign the cards in the first round seems like going around the rules.

[slumcamper]

20. Nope--they were signed after realignment. Sorry.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

21. But supporters of viable candidates were not allowed to realign under the rules.

Sounds like the rules were evaded.

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Why unfairly lock in viable candidates like that?

I saw several nonviable candidates end up getting more delegates in the final alignment than viable candidates did, which makes no sense to me. What if a viable candidate's supporters would prefer to join up with another viable candidate's supporter to make sure they got more delegates than some nonviable candidate(s) that grouped up? From my understanding of the rules, they couldn't do that because the viable candidate's supporters were "locked in" whereas the nonviable candidates could do what they want, including joining up to make a nonviable candidate receive more delegates in the final alignment than a viable candidate, which makes no sense to me.

I currently support Biden, but I am also a fan of Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, etc. and very much NOT a fan of Sanders, Yang, Gabbard, etc. If I caucused for Biden and he was viable in the first round, I would be locked in to support him in the final alignment, whereas a nonviable Sanders/Yang/Gabbard could all join forces and end up getting awarded more delegates, even though I may have willingly switched to another viable candidate like Warren or Buttigieg and rather given them all the delegates instead of having any go to Sanders/Yang/Gabbard.

It just makes no sense to me. Good god, these caucuses need to go.

[Peacetrain]

13. I think their thought process is to keep people from poaching

another candidates delegates that is my guess.. Some things are a mystery to me also. But if your candidate is not viable, then you are free to vote for anyone else you want.. Once you have voted, and that candidate has got a delegate, then you cannot change your vote and take the candidate away from them.. if that makes any sense.

[W_HAMILTON]

16. I think if your candidate is not viable after the first round, that's it -- they shouldn't...

..get any delegates. The nonviable candidates should be able to support other viable candidates or they can withhold their support and go home, but I don't believe it's fair that the nonviable candidates are allowed to all group up and end up competing (and even out-competing) candidates that passed the viability threshold after the first round.

[OKNancy]

7. Someone posted on twitter that she was badgered

to come over to one candidate. She said it was relentless. She looked pretty young in her twitter picture.
She finally gave up and went to the candidates group. Not saying which one, but you can guess.

[Rider3]

10. Not surprised

It's happening again.

[BlueIdaho]

19. Correct!

I saw it happening on TV - live! Probably because the non-viable groups were big name frontrunners. In one case Warren, in another case Klobuchar. The groups were not disbanded but were allowed to scurry around a beg for enough people to make the group viable. This is NOT how the rules work.

Who knows how many irregularities took place?

The Iowa caucus should be declared null. That’s a damn shame for the candidates that deserved momentum moving into New Hampshire...

[ecstatic]

22. Why don't they just have a do-over?

If these reports are true, the vote must be tossed.