I don't believe you could be po!itically engaged and believe that

it wasn't the moon landing people after all -- he went with the B team.

You are getting a bit silly in your desperation to ignore the truth. I'm betting this is going to get bigger and the people will be pretty mad about it.

N/T, just

I don't even believe that the former Secretary issued any directive to cheat.
The caucus was a nightmare with tiny venues and inexperienced precinct captains and a few overzealous Hillarians slipping quickly into desperation mode.
It's not difficult to see how some low level chicanery coupled with some rookie mistakes could have produced these results.
It's like the Senator said though, not the biggest deal in the world. So, she lost. Suck it up buttercup. What about your firewall?

And, like the coin tosses, I'm sure some benefited one side and some the other. In the end, Hillary won, and the conspiracy theories do nothing but make Bernie supporters look bad. So please proceed.

I'm not an enemy. You know I'll vote for Hilldawg if she's the nominee.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I've read enough books to know that human nature is such tha desperation can affect judgement. That's all.
In all actuality, in light of the post-caucus developments, I don't think it's quite fair to say "in the end, she won"
Clearly, we're not at the end.

Was there a special section on "Hillary supporters only"? Fascinating!

and ask if you've heard or seen any accusations that Sanders supporters engaged in anything shady.

Take your time googling, I'm sure you'll come up with something if you look hard enough.

In the meantime try not to drown in the tidal wave of speculation as to why the Clinton machine might feel it more important to check one in the W column leading up to NH.

Without speculating let's just call it like we all see it.

Hillary has massive lead. Hillary loses massive lead. All the little Democrats that already printed up their "Hillary Wins!" T-Shirts see trouble on the horizon.

That's as far as I need to go. The Sanders campaign and his supporters have been busy motivating voters and trading on his message of enough is enough and what they've had enough of is business as usual in politics.

Hillary has embraced the business as usual trope in her support of incrementalism. She is opposed to radical change because it upsets the comfortable groove we've worn in the floor, walking back and forth between the aisles.

Like I said Dan, I'll vote Democrat in November because I know that Hillary would have been my choice if a better option hadn't come along. Until she's the nominee though I'm going with the better option.

But, unlike what seems to be the national sport of BernieLand, I'm not interested in pursuing election conspiracy theories. Like the coin tosses that Bernie supporters were absolutely furious about a couple days ago, I'm confident that the mistakes, which I'm sure there were plenty, went about equally one way and the other.

There have been so many conspiracy theories comping from Bernie people on reddit this campaign, that even you have to admit that there's a certain Boy Who Cried Wolf effect taking place. Remember how all those unions had been infiltrated, and the polls had been intentionally skewed, and media execs instructed reporters and pundits to be biased against Bernie because of whatever reason, and that Paul Krugman and others writing things not sufficiently pro-Bernie were angling for a cabinet position?

Oh, and one more thing. Winning Iowa was equally important to both sides. That's because the primaries are a zero-sum game. In a sense, Bernie "needed" a win more because it was a very friendly demographic. Hillary's ahead nationally, she can afford to run out the clock, Bernie needs to create some motion. But since Bernie's loss is Hillary's gain, and vice versa (in the primary race), then both sides would be equally motivated to cheat.

That caucus can be quite pain full. My wife and I were heavy in to the BHO election the first time, It was great we had over a thousand people show when we normally get a hundred. We collected email address from young people who were eager to get involved. The address were never saved, the state Dems won't let us have access so we could get volunteers for the midterms, our local chair would not let the captains have the info and threw it out rather then let us build something good. so when someone tells me that was some BS going on, I tend to believe it because I've been there when we put BHO in office.

but I tend to think it is. And THAT'S what's scary. : C;mon now - it is what it is so move on.

There are 49 states left and many of them a larger.

Nothing to see here. Not.

appear to stand behind have rigged votes before. And your side has unlimited money. The wealthy rich don't like to lose and are willing to do what it takes.

We want the existing culture of corruption by big money to end.

.

Of course, you'll try and force the last word with this comment, making it even more ironic.

.

It's really the primary trait I associate with hillary supporters this election season: intellectual dishonesty.
You're absolutely right... you cannot be politically active and reasonably discount election fraud.

Can you just imagine the PMs going back and forth between Hillary supporters? Goodness me.

I'd rather not make it any lower. That and I actually respect a number of her supporters... I'd hate to think they might be involved in any of that.

Is something else. Do you think there was no foul play in Florida 2000? In Ohio 2004? Do you also equate the Des moines Register with conspiracy types who think the moon landing was fake? They supported your candidate but are publishing stories about how something smells in the Iowa results and are also calling for an audit which is being stopped by a woman in power who;s plates on her car read HRC 2016.

To call someone who is reasonably calling for certainty in elections a conspiracy nut only furthers the perception is very...Republican and bullyish - in my opinion.

Probably 90% of the people in the Country question why two of the smallest States have so much say in our Presidential elections. Add the fact that Iowa can't seem to get it right, at least two times in a row, and it wouldn't take much to get a ground swell started to get some changes made in the primary system.

Can you imagine the affect of Iowa going from first in the nation to say fortieth? Lost are all the millions spent by the candidates, their staff, and the media. Potentially more devastating could be the loss of the ethanol subsidies when politicians don't have to suck up to Iowa anymore especially when oil is now so cheap.

kind of spending required and somewhat in the mainstream. I believe it is a discussion that may come up, as it should.

I tend to be a smart ass too, but occasionally I do provide material that is actually worth reading. That guy- not so much.

He's just here to annoy and attempt to rile people up so he can alert and get them banned. Don't take his silly bait. Just put him on ignore.

It really is silly season, isn't it? Reminds me very much of 2000. Up was down, inside was out and it started long before the Flordia theft of the election. It is theater of the absurd.

It's sort of a strange sound. Slow and drawn out, high pitched- like it sounds when you pull on the neck of a balloon and let the air out?

I think it's gonna be a lot like that.

Is making stuff up without real evidence.

Such people are liabilities.

Those who blindly accept anything else are liabilities to a free society.

would be fair. Allowing the audit to move forward would be fair.

Apart from this particular issue, which at the very most would only result in a tiny change, what really matters is that there must be NO DOUBT in the veracity of our election results.

When voting integrity comes into question it undermines our whole democracy.

There have been four that have been reported by the media.

What is happening is this: The Iowa Democratic Party has all precinct caucus results on their website at this location:
http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-IDP-Final-Precinct-Caucus-Results-PrecinctCandidateResults1.pdf

Bernie precinct captains and precinct chairs are looking at those numbers.

Thus far, 4 people have come forward to say that the numbers were reported incorrectly. Clinton was given one delegate that she didn't earn. Bernie had one taken away. All errors found have favored Clinton.

As much as you want to turn this into a sparkly, unicorn fairy tale--you are dead wrong.

Nice spin. But your spin is revealed for the bullshit that it is, when you know the facts. You need to come to Iowa and be involved with the reality is unfolding here.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

to lunch. Same goes for Donald Trump.

The entire Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register has called for the Iowa Democratic Party to examine the caucus results.

Are all members of the Des Moines Register part of some concerted effort to perpetuate "conspiracy theories" as you said?

Do I have to remind you that this same Editorial Board has endorsed Hillary Clinton twice for President.

Oh boy! I've seen some disconnects with reality in my days, but your assertions have to take the cake.

He could do a re-count on his logic, but it doesn't go along with the ends justifying the means. Good thing he's not in office.

Maybe he should run. He'd find out a thing or two. Meanwhile, I'm sure he's dialing for hollers on the alert baiting thing.

I was treated to a go-round the other day. By the end it felt like something was seriously wrong. I see tons more bullying from one side than the other.

Maybe it goes with the territory.

Mere ad hominem does not become us.

Winners don't generally seek to question the results...

The results were certainly close enough to take another look, but touting that all errors favored the winner is most likely due to not looking for errors that favored the loser at this point. There's plenty of time, do as much of a recount as can be done and we will see where the chips fall.

Good one. I knew some of the Sanders people will end up as conspiracy nuts. I wonder if some will be subscribing to Alex Jones and Dan Bidondi and screaming that Hillary can't take their guns?

How people change.

...outlining the reasons why they think the moon landing was faked.

Here is what they had to say about this year's Democratic caucuses:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/

Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party

We won that one too.

comments are silly, unproductive, not helpful, and distracting.

Do you really think its statistically possible that every possible irregularity always went Hillary's way?

Because it is widely used to shut people up when they say something you don't like to acknowledge. Because fear of ridicule works for some people.
Downlow would be a good one, because you use the lowest thing you can think of and compare it with what is being talked about to shut people up...but I know that term is used already in another way.

With the reality of it.

"Joking" is when you get called out on your BS.

It has a distinctive whiff of red herring to my nose, but I would say you could argue that it is a sweeping or hasty generalization as well.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Any idea whatsoever?

What other conclusion is there to draw, Dan?

Watching people compromise core principles in support of a flawed candidate is fascinating to me.

You know this.

"Conspiracies" in elections is not exactly an unusual thing. I mean look at what the Republicans have coordinated (voter supression) for years.

Personally I don't see this as a conspiracy as much as difference in ethics. One of the problems with the current establishment in our party is they have more "ends justify the means" thinking. It seemed obvious to me from some of the "shenanigans" that went on that they are more willing to "game" the system.

Like this:

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1478435

But the look on the faces of Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea during her victory /non victory speech before they high tailed it out of town and refused to respond to questions, perhaps suggests otherwise.

"knows nothing" about the push polls, either...

She certainly makes sure it can't be proven but we know and this may grow.

is never to leave their fingerprints on anything. Just like the server issue, it was obviously under her authority but underlings will pay the price. That is the cost of being associated with a Clinton.

to throw away their own credibility and/or fall on the sword for Hillary.

It would make for a great Phys-Ops study.

they throw away their credibility on behalf of a person with such questionable ethics

BUT the "fix" was so in (with persons that are dedicated, die-hard Hill devotees, that will do anything) in many regions of the state...that it wouldn't come as any surprise that there could have been a few number changes. How many reports and videos of not only things in Iowa but Democratic offices around the country that have only Hill promotional materials and/or won't allow Bernie materials...thank you DWS for making it crystal clear the favored candidate.

All I want is honest and truthful voting results...in any vote, at any time. But it seems that our systems are so vile and corrupt that getting accurate vote counts seems almost impossible. HOPEFULLY, shining a brilliant light on Iowa will put other states on notice about keeping it honest.

This is another reason it's time for that Political Revolution in America...on all levels of Federal, State and Local governments. It's time for honesty and delivering what the citizen voters actually want.

in a close race?

LOL.

But a much wider margin with obvious cheating going on. But you go ahead and cling to that two tenths.

Look it up to learn the difference.

They do so often and without proof in order to disenfranchise voters with hurdles they put in place to keep people from voting, claiming the dead vote, unregistered ppl vote or that ppl vote multiple times when in truth such has not been known to happen more times than can be counted on one hand over the course of several elections dating back decades. It does not surprise me that a member here would cite voter fraud as it has become apparent that a great many right wingers have joined the last few years, I do not doubt they are Democrats (well maybe a little) but they are right wing no matter how they register and they have brought their lingo, tactics, and bad taste with them.

Election fraud on the other hand has been proven in places like Florida and demonstrated repeatedly by showing how easy and fast it is to switch votes in a machine or at the tally software location (too easy to believe coincidentally easy) hacking leaving no trace.

All known election fraud that has happened at caucus type venues (luckily such is rare) has been done by switching tallies in the office, after the fact, the same activities that have been described by multiple sources across the internet.

Another distinctive indicator of election fraud is that the person in charge of deciding if there is to be an audit or recount is a staunch ally of the person the fraud favors, perhaps sporting a licence plate HRC 2016 and this person in power over the results acts in a peculiar way in the face of multiple discrepancies during such a close race, such as calling it early and final while refusing an audit or recount, it is all so reminiscent of Harris in Florida in 2000.

Unfortunately, if the usual pattern of election fraud remains consistent the fraud will be left to stand, the person in power that likely enabled it rewarded, and all attempts to get a deserved audit would have to come from the court (in other words, the perpetrators will not budge, period, unless forced to)

had actually occurred, which does appear to be the case. Who won the pool on how easily you'd dismiss any reports of irregularities as long as clinton were left the "winner"? would you be so blase about it if Sanders had won under equally suspicious circumstances? I suspect not. Bottom line is, there's credible evidence that irregularities happened. That should trouble you no matter who it went to.

Bernie supporters are very avid 'every vote counts, and count every vote'. We just want the truth. Even if Bernie lost more delegates it would be fine, as long as it was the truth. We don't want to win, just to win. We want honesty, which is one of the reasons we are attracted to Bernie.

Z

Not a term embraced by many in our system anymore.

gave us Al Franken. Not counting every vote gave us George Bush.

... in a close race.

Sore losers. LOL.

"Bernie followers" but Clinton has "supporters" as if we're nothing more than a cult. Why is that?

Does it bother you to answer? I'll tell you one thing, it won't change who I "support".

The idea that I may be upset. How sad is that.

You've answered my question after all, thanks.

Rhetorical Crutch. But it's now no longer credible....tied nationally and all.

Here's another one... Grasping at straws ... probably even more to the point.

"speaks volumes"
"no longer credible"

goes with the poutrage.