Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Something smells in the Democratic Party [View all]Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)96. Lordy Them Violating Insinuations
Where are my pearls (tm)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
128 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Once again we ask... why not be transparent? What could be wrong with verifying the results?
tecelote
Feb 2016
#3
Fundamentally, there is no way to verify anything since there were no paper ballots.
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#6
An inability to recount people is no reason to not be transparent about the work documents
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#65
No, if you saw an apparent discrepancy, you'd go with the counts on your work documents,
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#84
as Americans we have the right to oversee every phase of our elections
questionseverything
Feb 2016
#115
21 - 21 was never an official final count. The AP explained why the final count was 23 to 21,
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#119
Are you correct about there being no 'one person, one vote' in the Iowa caucauses? I think
KingCharlemagne
Feb 2016
#97
Fox Resorts To Bogus "Voter Fraud" Claims To Downplay Clinton Caucus Victory
workinclasszero
Feb 2016
#61
All of this was supposed to be hashed out while the three campaigns were in the room
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#4
Absolutely. I don't know why anyone thought this one would be the exception. n/t
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#37
Sanders camp tried and the DNC rep brushed them off and told them to bring it up later.
kristopher
Feb 2016
#77
Every time this was brought up at DU we are told that is the way the caucus cookie crumbles.
Ford_Prefect
Feb 2016
#9
How does this refute my observations? The party refused to examine the record which you insist
Ford_Prefect
Feb 2016
#30
I fully expected this bullshit. Anywhere the polls are close enough there will be subterfuge.
Enthusiast
Feb 2016
#14
This. I was actually naive enough to accept the results with a few minor quibbles. Stuff happens, I
Ed Suspicious
Feb 2016
#21
Video cameras are in everyone's hands now, everything gets digitally recorded
Fumesucker
Feb 2016
#17
The Clinton entourage skedaddling off tight lipped to New Hampshire now makes a bit more sense
Fumesucker
Feb 2016
#20
+1. It's what happened the first time Al Franken was elected to the Senate.
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#55
If there are inconsistencies & the Iowa DNC won't look into the problem, you have to wonder
RiverLover
Feb 2016
#36
That's strange since the Sanders campaign announced they weren't going to dispute
pnwmom
Feb 2016
#44
Iowa must be one Effed Up state. Remember Romney won, then Santorum? Perhaps IA Dems no better!
TheBlackAdder
Feb 2016
#45
Oww, Debbie just can't help herself can she? She can only help Hillary. eom
Betty Karlson
Feb 2016
#66
Is is very dishonest of Bernie and his campaign to imply the results can be verified.
Nitram
Feb 2016
#67
It's very dishonest to claim that's what they're looking for, when they clearly state that
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#75
Maybe he does have buggy software. Or maybe the state does. Or both do.
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#91
Given the razor-thin margin, I think a recount should be done, because
winter is coming
Feb 2016
#102
Ridiculous, if this was a stolen election it would have been by a much wider margin.
Pisces
Feb 2016
#105
The Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary, so if they're calling for a recount, that should carry
Uncle Joe
Feb 2016
#106