Finally, (some) Dems learn vote fraud is a problem

Is it just me, or is it ironic to see that Democrats some, at least have suddenly found religion regarding voter fraud...now that it affects them, of course?

For years, Democrats have contended that vote fraud is not a problem, blocking any significant attempts to deal with the issue.  However, now that a Democrat well, actually a Socialist, but a fellow traveler nonetheless is the victim of their dirty tricks, some are taking vote fraud seriously.  From Politico:

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is laying the groundwork for what could be a challenge to the Iowa Democratic caucus results, a step that could lead to a divisive and drawn-out dispute with Hillary Clinton.

The campaign has committed roughly 10 core staff members and volunteers, based in Sanders’ Des Moines headquarters and in locations across Iowa, to calling the campaign’s precinct captains from each of the state’s 1,681 precincts to make sure their results matched up with the official reported numbers.

[snip]

The painstaking precinct-by-precinct canvas — which is a long shot to change the top-line result — is an outgrowth of the Sanders’ camp’s repeated questions about the reporting process for the caucus results — questions the campaign raised before the caucuses. While his team has been careful not to allege any outright foul play, the campaign put a spotlight on the Microsoft software used to report the results and then — on caucus night — suggested to reporters that 90 precincts hadn’t properly reported their numbers.

Even the Des Moines Register, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, has called for Monday's caucus votes to be re-examined in an editorial titled "Something smells in the Democratic Party":

What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.

Their editorial notes:

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.

Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no.

McGuire, one should note, is an avowed Clintonista; she co-chaired Clinton's 2008 Iowa campaign and is a Hillary contributor and avowed supporter.

Oh, and about those infamous coin flips?  A separate Register report explains that no one really knows how many decided delegate tallies.

Why is the number unknown? Because officials who reported county delegate totals without using the party's smartphone app weren't required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss, said Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party.

Then there is at least one instance in which certain caucus-goers apparently just disappeared from the count:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Representatives of Sanders and Hillary were told by the state office to flip a coin for the final delegate.  Of course, Hillary won.  Thus, even though already benefiting from the "missing" sixty participants (Yes, it's a presumption.  But we are talking the Clintons here.), Clinton won another delegate, giving her five and Sanders just three.  It does make one wonder what would have happened had those missing sixty people had been able to make their preference known.

The Sanders camp is up in arms over what appears to be a systemic subversion of the election rules in Iowa by the Clinton crime political syndicate.  And the media is actually paying attention for a change.

No doubt because Democrats are now making the charges.

Is it just me, or is it ironic to see that Democrats some, at least have suddenly found religion regarding voter fraud...now that it affects them, of course?

For years, Democrats have contended that vote fraud is not a problem, blocking any significant attempts to deal with the issue.  However, now that a Democrat well, actually a Socialist, but a fellow traveler nonetheless is the victim of their dirty tricks, some are taking vote fraud seriously.  From Politico:

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is laying the groundwork for what could be a challenge to the Iowa Democratic caucus results, a step that could lead to a divisive and drawn-out dispute with Hillary Clinton.

The campaign has committed roughly 10 core staff members and volunteers, based in Sanders’ Des Moines headquarters and in locations across Iowa, to calling the campaign’s precinct captains from each of the state’s 1,681 precincts to make sure their results matched up with the official reported numbers.

[snip]

The painstaking precinct-by-precinct canvas — which is a long shot to change the top-line result — is an outgrowth of the Sanders’ camp’s repeated questions about the reporting process for the caucus results — questions the campaign raised before the caucuses. While his team has been careful not to allege any outright foul play, the campaign put a spotlight on the Microsoft software used to report the results and then — on caucus night — suggested to reporters that 90 precincts hadn’t properly reported their numbers.

Even the Des Moines Register, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, has called for Monday's caucus votes to be re-examined in an editorial titled "Something smells in the Democratic Party":

What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.

Their editorial notes:

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.

Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no.

McGuire, one should note, is an avowed Clintonista; she co-chaired Clinton's 2008 Iowa campaign and is a Hillary contributor and avowed supporter.

Oh, and about those infamous coin flips?  A separate Register report explains that no one really knows how many decided delegate tallies.

Why is the number unknown? Because officials who reported county delegate totals without using the party's smartphone app weren't required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss, said Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party.

Then there is at least one instance in which certain caucus-goers apparently just disappeared from the count:

A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).

Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.

Representatives of Sanders and Hillary were told by the state office to flip a coin for the final delegate.  Of course, Hillary won.  Thus, even though already benefiting from the "missing" sixty participants (Yes, it's a presumption.  But we are talking the Clintons here.), Clinton won another delegate, giving her five and Sanders just three.  It does make one wonder what would have happened had those missing sixty people had been able to make their preference known.

The Sanders camp is up in arms over what appears to be a systemic subversion of the election rules in Iowa by the Clinton crime political syndicate.  And the media is actually paying attention for a change.

No doubt because Democrats are now making the charges.