Anti-Sanders Fraud? Report finds ‘errors at every stage’ of Democrat vote tabulation process in Iowa

The DNC may not think Biden's the best candidate, but the party certainly does NOT want Sanders

By Tank Murdoch

(TNS) The New York Times has a less-than-stellar reputation for reporting factually and fairly on President Donald Trump and his administration, but when it comes to its coverage of the Democrat Party, the paper tends to pay closer attention to details.

That’s why we found a story in the paper’s Monday edition about the disastrous Iowa Democratic caucuses so interesting — and revealing.



According to a Times investigation, there was much more going on behind the scenes to stoke the disaster than just a faulty voting app — that was tied to a firm founded by Clinton and Obama campaign operatives. While that in and of itself seems sinister, Bush 43 political adviser Brad Blakeman told Fox Business Network’s Trish Regan that’s more likely tied to “greed” — former Democratic operatives feeding off this year’s crop of Democrat candidates as a way to make a lot of money quickly.

The bigger story, obviously, is the outcome of the voting results, as well as the haphazard and even, perhaps, phony way in which the final votes were calculated. In short, anyone who suspects there may have been some biases built into the results could be correct in their assumption.

The Times first sets the stage, noting that the app failed early:

As a torrent of results were phoned in from school gymnasiums, union halls and the myriad other gathering places that made the Iowa caucuses a world-famous model of democracy, it soon became clear that the whole process was melting down. 

Volunteers resorted to passing around a spare iPad to log into the system. Melissa Watson, the state party’s chief financial officer, who was in charge of the boiler room, did not know how to operate a Google spreadsheet application used to input data, Democratic officials later acknowledged.

Others, desperate to verify results, began telling some precinct leaders to email photographs of their worksheets — the paper forms used to tally results — to a dedicated email address. But for hours, no one monitored the inbox. When it was finally opened Tuesday morning, there were 700 unread emails waiting, with photos that had been sent sideways; volunteers had to crane their necks to decipher the handwritten forms.

Within an hour of the caucuses opening, state Democrats in Iowa were aware of the unfolding chaos, but no one had a game plan to deal with it, the Times noted. They also had no answers for increasingly frustrated presidential campaigns.
But:

As disastrous as the 2020 Iowa caucuses have appeared to the public, the failure runs deeper and wider than has previously been known, according to dozens of interviews with those involved. It was a total system breakdown that casts doubt on how a critical contest on the American political calendar has been managed for years.

To this point, most people have been told the biggest issue had to do with a “coding error” regarding a vote-tally reporting app, created by a company called Shadow Inc. “But the crackup resulted from cascading failures going back months,” the Times noted.


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Those involved at least partly blamed Bernie Sanders (surprise!), as the Times noted. After Iowa 2016, in which Sanders narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton — and it became known, early on, in the Sanders camp that the Democratic Party was angling to nominate her no matter what — changes in “transparency” demanded by his allies were made and implemented for this year’s caucuses.

Then, the Times revealed these bombshells:

The widespread lack of faith in the Iowa results has shaken many Americans’ confidence in their electoral system. Mr. Trump has reveled in the meltdown. Democrats have proposed abolishing caucuses and ending Iowa’s time at the front of the presidential nominating calendar.

Even as party officials scramble to contain the fallout, the full extent of the problems in Iowa is still not known.

An analysis by The New York Times revealed inconsistencies in the reported data for at least one in six of the state’s precincts. Those errors occurred at every stage of the tabulation process: in recording votes, in calculating and awarding delegates, and in entering the data into the state party’s database. Hundreds of state delegate equivalents, the metric the party uses to determine delegates for the national convention, were at stake in these precincts.

The Iowa Democratic Party released a list of 92 precincts on Sunday that it said were flagged as problematic by three presidential candidates — Mr. Sanders; Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind.; and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. That figure is far fewer than the number with inconsistencies captured in the Times review. The Associated Press said it was unable to declare a caucus winner.

In other words, the caucus is so screwed up that it’s likely Americans — and especially Iowa Democratic caucus voters — may never know the real results of that contest.


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Now, either that is by design…or it’s not. That seems obvious, but those are the two most pertinent questions following what happened in Iowa.

If if it was intentional, why?

Certainly, elements of the Times report make it seem as though there were a series of unforced errors that led to the calamity.

But in politics, the answers are rarely that simple. And after all, we’re talking about Democrats here; the party’s behavior during the 2016 nominating process, shirking Sanders intentionally to elevate Clinton despite the fact that the former was contesting her every step of the way, is all the evidence we need to proclaim what happened in Iowa suspicious and maybe even intentional.

That said, it’s not clear that the Democratic hierarchy has ‘settled’ on Joe Biden to be this year’s nominee. After all, his own president, Barack Obama, has never even publicly endorsed him (and wouldn’t he, if Biden were competent and could win?).



But one thing seems as sure in 2020 as it did in 2016: The party doesn’t want Sanders, who it sees as an interloper, a hanger-on who would have zero chance at winning the presidency if he ran as the “Independent” he’s claimed to be all these years:

In the Times review of the data, at least 10 percent of precincts appeared to have improperly allocated their delegates, based on reported vote totals. In some cases, precincts awarded more delegates than they had to give; in others, they awarded fewer. More than two dozen precincts appeared to give delegates to candidates who did not qualify as viable under the caucus rules.

Given the slim lead Mr. Buttigieg now holds over Mr. Sanders in state delegate equivalents, a full accounting of these inconsistencies could alter the outcome. But without access to the precinct worksheets, it is difficult to determine whom the errors hurt or favored.

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW


 

39
Leave a Reply

avatar
22 Comment threads
17 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
.50cal
Guest
.50cal

Yawn, these losers are too busy watching sodomite porn and picking children out of their teeth.

Remember, Karl Marxism is satanism. Prove me wrong.

D3F1ANT
Guest
D3F1ANT

The Dems can never allow Sanders to be the nominee. There aren’t enough hipsters in the US to ever elect a Commie president.

Showme
Guest
Showme

Election fraud is a crime.

BilboQBaggins
Guest
BilboQBaggins

The DNC already has chosen the socialist democrats’ candidate and it sure won’t be poor old Bernie. My guess is they’ll back Mini-Mikey Bloomberg with Schrillary bring up the rear (VP). They can’t afford to back a candidate. They’re broke. The DNC needs a huge infusion of Khazarian mafia money(Mini-Mikey and Soros).

John Henry
Guest
John Henry

Well, Creepy Joe did tell those coal miners to learn coding since the Dems were coming for their jobs, maybe one of them took offense and decided to get some payback lol.

RLABruce
Guest
RLABruce

“Report finds ‘errors at every stage’ of Democrat vote tabulation process in Iowa”

In other words, Hillary’s caucus app worked exactly as designed.

Dave Hunter
Guest
Dave Hunter

That many errors means they purposely introduced those errors in order to be able to hide the fraud. Don’t kid yourselves. Buttagieg was no way equal to Sanders in any of the polls, which is why they hid the final poll results. NO way Buttagieg wins NH, or anything in any state where the black vote is definitive.

candle in a hurricane
Guest
candle in a hurricane

Bloomberg’s check has already cleared..
DNC didn’t have 2 nickles to rub together 6 months ago.
He’s lurking till Super Tuesday.
Bernie gets another house.
Liz gets a case of beer.
Pete goes back to the C_A.
And Joe gets one behind the ear.
………..
There I fixed it for you.

USJoe Freedom
Guest
USJoe Freedom

Fraud is not the same as errors… This was fraud and corruption as it always is with the left.

Brewster
Guest
Brewster

Who gives a crap.
Last time I checked there are no meteors heading towards earth and Trump is still President.
Good enough for me.

Alano
Guest
Alano

Hanging digital chads. Iowa’s very own Broward Co chads

Pertinaxjak
Guest
Pertinaxjak

And if they can do this to supposedly one of their own: imagine what they will do with their democrat backs to the wall with Trump and the Republicans! What is the GOP going to do about the tsunami of voter fraud, ballot harvesting, hacking of computer electoral results, and ballot harvesting? The despicable democrats cleaned us out in California. Forwarmed is forearmed.

Tim
Guest
Tim

“…volunteers had to crane their necks to decipher the handwritten forms…” Really, NYT? No one in the DNC knows how to rotate an e-mailed image? And you let that go? What kind of reporting is this?

r koz
Guest

all i took away from the I-oh-way circus was another attempt by the dems saying, see our electoral system don,t work, lets move on to one vote. no electoral college. subvert the base, they,re followers will munch it up.

Anna Nimity
Guest

The Democrat Party is just putting into practice how to run things based on their new platform of PC. You will never see the most qualified person to run things any more when the Democrats are in control. Eliz. Warren even said a LBGTQRST person will help pick her Educ. Sec. if she is elected. Here are the new PC qualifications for working in the government under these Democrats: Most Desirable: Non-White; Next Desirable: Woman; Next Desirable: LBGTQRST; Least Desirable: Actually qualified to do the job: Case in point the woman in the story, “Melissa Watson, the state party’s chief… Read more »

.50cal
Guest
.50cal

Is this a MookFart.

Harold E Ticke
Guest
Harold E Ticke

The democrats tried to fix the 2016 presidential election and are working feverishly to fix the 2020 presidential election, Iowa was just a test run for gullible democrats.

Becky
Guest
Becky

These people want to manage my healthcare? Not a chance.

Guest
Harry

What do you expect when half a dozen or so people have no vision or plan and Iowa citizens have no idea who to vote for? It will happen again today in NH.

David C
Guest
David C

It would hardly be surprising if the Dems resorted to fraud to rig the outcome. This is what they have traditionally done. To some extent, it is what they actually believe in doing. The positions they push so aggressively, especially their shameless battles against requiring any kind of ID whatsoever, are almost undoubtedly aimed at facilitating fraud.

WhisperinPints
Guest
WhisperinPints

No mention of devious Repubs overwhelming their system? LOL

Bozo
Guest
Bozo

The scary thing is, it’s these same democrats who want to take over control of our country. The fact that it was all exposed this time make that a lot less likely but still very frightening!

%d bloggers like this: