Posted on 02/02/2016 8:00:52 AM PST by SeekAndFind
While Ted Cruz won a five-point victory in what really turned into a three-way race in the GOP’s Iowa Caucus, the Democratic Party’s side of the caucus turned into a real nailbiter. Hillary Clinton clung to a lead of less than a percentage point by the end of the night, with both she and Bernie Sanders claiming victory at the end. At the moment, CNN’s election tracker still shows a 50/50 tie, although Hillary has 24 delegates assigned to Bernie’s 21, thanks to the arcane and opaque process by which Democrats operate their caucuses.
Speaking of which, Bernie may want a recount. NBC’s Kasie Hunt caught up with the challenger after he deplaned in New Hampshire, and while he’s looking forward, he might still want one careful look back too:
BERNIE SANDERS — is capable of running and winning any state of this country. We look forward to doing well here in New Hampshire. And after that, we’re off to Nevada and then South Carolina, where I think we’re going to surprise a whole lot of people, just as we did in Iowa.
KASIE HUNT: Do you anticipate contesting this vote count at all?
SANDERS: Honestly, we just got off the plane and I — we don’t know enough to say anything about it.
How does one recount a caucus? Even on the Republican side that would be difficult, as was discovered in 2012 in the razor-thin outcome between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. On the Democratic side, it would be all but impossible, thanks to the multiple-round system employed. In each precinct, voting takes place initially to figure out where the candidates stand; candidates are then eliminated if they cannot get to 15% and another round of voting takes place to see where those freed-up votes will go. Even though Martin O’Malley was in most precincts easily eliminated, the existence of multiple votes would still foul a recount process.
This, by the way, is one of the better arguments for eliminating caucuses and sticking to normal ballot procedures in primaries.
Politico’s Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni conclude that Hillary 2016 looks a lot like Hillary 2008:
Iowa wasn't just supposed to be a tentative first step in Clinton's inevitable march to the Democratic nomination, it was meant to be the cornerstone of a rebuilt political persona – and her national team was built from Iowa outward, with a foundational goal of winning here, and winning big.
But nothing is ever easy with Hillary Clinton – especially not here — and her inability to ride a first-class ground organization to triumph underscores the candidate's weakness and the lack of a message that resonates with primary voters. For months, the Republican side of the aisle has been filled with drama and uncertainty – yet in the end it was a 74-year-old, wild-haired Democratic socialist who has muddied a contest that was supposed to be predictable. …
In 2008, Clinton's ambivalence about Iowa resulted in a muddled strategy and a flawed field operation. This time she had the best operation money could buy and experience could muster: The 100-plus staffer operation was built by Clinton's 35-year-old campaign manager Robby Mook, Clinton's best field organizer eight years ago, and he devoted the bulk of the candidate's time and the campaign's resources to the first four voting states, with an extreme focus on Iowa over other states where the campaign's presence was bare-bones.
But Clinton suffered from the same structural disadvantage here that hurt her in 2008. Her appeal was limited, mostly, to older frequent caucus goers – with a goal of maximizing turnout and pulling from a poll of about 20,000 Democratic voters who never participate in the labor-intensive caucus process. Sanders, who attracted big crowds on college campuses and high schools, had a much larger reservoir of young people to draw from – and he apparently did just that on caucus night, according to initial estimates.
Yes, but in 2008 Hillary finished in third place, not tied for first. Sanders had begun to overtake her in some polls over the past month, so Bernie wasn’t entirely the underdog last night. Sanders probably needed a clear win to rattle Hillary’s supporters. A 50/50 split might not have been Hillary’s dream come true, but with a beating approaching in New Hampshire, it’s enough of a winning narrative to sustain her campaign until South Carolina. Sanders has to prove he can beat Hillary somewhere other than his backyard in New Hampshire and in the prairie-populist states in the Midwest. And he hasn’t quite proven the latter — yet, anyway.
Looks like voter fraud...
Why?
Late ballot boxes are a sign of voter fraud. When fraud's done boxes are kept back in close races to ‘adjust’ the vote ... Those boxes can't be sent in until the vote is known so the ‘right number’ of votes can be added.
Add too many and the fraud's obvious - add to few and an ‘Al Gore loses in Florida’ thing happens.
The FBI should investigate precincts turning in late boxes - that's where the fraud would have happened. First check the 'dead vote'. When the ‘dead’ vote's high it's a sign fraud is happening.
The way the vote's increased illegally (in the old days) was to vote the people who didn't show up to vote... hence ‘the dead’ were an unintended consequence of voter fraud. Fraud often happens in communities with traditionally higher crime rats... black and minority communities. White liberal elites choose these communities because it decreases the chances anyone will snitch. Did some of the late ballot boxes come from precincts dominated by Mexican meat packer workers?
The FBI can send out letters asking people if they voted - and at what polling station in precincts that have a large 'dead' vote.
We’re officially a Banana Republic.
For Iowa? ... Really not worth ol' B.S.'s time (or anyone else's, for that matter).
>> The FBI should investigate precincts turning in late boxes
Would that be the FBI that is part of the Department of Justice that is headed by Loretta Lynch, who works for Barack Obama?
Is that the FBI of which you speak?
Good and I hope he does! I do not consider IA a win for Hillary.
Shhhh! Don't let him know that.
>> We’re officially a Banana Republic.
Complete with a dictator, a Mrs. dictator who flies with the kids to Europe to shop, and an assortment of kleptocrats in key roles.
The FBI doesn’t need Loretta Lynch’s permission to start or finish an investigation.
Almost...not there yet. Sanders needs to push on this...
>> The FBI doesn’t need Loretta Lynch’s permission
In theory.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Same with indicting Hillary. If there was no undue influence from Obama and the DOJ, she’d already be under indictment.
"Once all preference groups meet the established viability threshold, the number of delegates for each group will be determined. Each group then elects its delegates and alternates from within the group. All participants then reconvene and take a verbal vote to ratify the selection of delegates."
The FBI knows what they’re up against. Every ‘i’ must be dotted, every ‘t’ crossed... and the case must be overwhelming.
How would a recount between two democrats work. Every subsequent count would increase the number of votes for both candidates. I suppose the winner would be determined by whoevers vote count was first to exceed the total population of the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.