Des Moines Register calls shenanigans in the #IowaCaucus (updated)

Voters sign in before the Democratic presidential caucus
at Simpson Barn in Johnston Monday, February 1, 2016.
Brenna Norman/For The Register

This is NOT a conspiracy theory about coin flips, so sit down, Clintonistas.

The Des Moines Register, the paper that endorsed Hillary Clinton, let us note, is saying something is definitely rotten in the state of the Iowa Democratic Party, to the point it's calling for a full audit of Iowa Democratic caucus results. And, per the editorial, so far, Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the party, is digging in her heels and saying no, which is going to add fuel to claims of actual conspiracies.

And, CNN is now picking up on this.

So is Change.org, which has a petition drive demanding a recount or audit.

The main point:

First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.

Is pure and simple.

From there, the Register notes:

Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. 

So, the need for an audit.

Meanwhile, per McGuire digging in her heels?

Her actions only confirm the suspicions, wild as they might be, of Sanders supporters. Their candidate, after all, is opposed by the party establishment — and wasn’t even a Democrat a few months ago.

Bingo. And, as long as the Democratic hierarchy in Iowa digs in, the more and more willing I am to throw gasoline and extra matches on this tire fire.

And, beyond digging in her heels, she's now outrightly lying.

She's claiming the raw votes aren't available, when they were in 2008. McGuire is claiming that is based on "journalistic estimates." Really, down to the exact number?

Does Pinocchio live in Des Moines?

Finally, to its credit, even though it might affect Iowa’s midwinter economy every four years, the Register calls on (presumably, both parties, eventually), to take a new look at the whole caucus idea.

 

And, it gets worse. Per a post on the Iowa DP's Facebook page, this comment:

The Iowa Democratic Caucus needs deep reforms. It's bad when the Iowa Republican Caucus is more democratic (every vote actually counts, and the Iowa Republican party actually releases the vote number). Maybe it should be changed to a primary. Either way, the voters deserve better.

Is hugely damning. 

Speaking of Facebook, here's the home page of the Iowa Democratic Party. (Its Twitter account seems pretty inactive.) Go give it hell.

Related? This is yet more reason why I refuse to vote Democratic in the general election. And, I'll trumpet that ever more as part of adding yet other gasoline and matches to fires.

#FeelTheBern, with a dash of #BlackLivesMatter at the #DemTownHall before the #NHPrimary

There we go. Hashtags all in order.

First observation? Sanders sounded his most personable yet of any debate or town hall event. Big plus there. His humorous kneecapping of Donald Trump's conspiracy theorizing was well-played.

Biggest plus beyond the congeniality? Per my second hashtag, his response on policing to an African-American person from the audience. He noted that use of force should always be a last resort, but honestly said that for some cops, it's the first. He said police officers needed to be held just as accountable to the law as anybody else. The rest of his answer was totally spot on.

And, those comments may have helped Sanders land the endorsement of former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Jealous.

Second biggest plus? His response to a New Hampshire state legislator, explaining how he is the real can-do candidate, able to accomplish, and having already accomplished, a lot of things. I've covered this in depth, a week ago. Community housing land bank as Burlington mayor. "Senator (Successful) Amendment" as a senator. And in between.

His worst answer? The ISIS one. Like friend Brains, I think Bernie's too much of a warhawk. I've also covered this in depth, noting that the War on Terror has definite parallels to the War on Drugs. I half-cringed when I heard his "crush ISIS" answer. Indeed, it is exactly things like this that lead me to stress, on this blog, on Facebook, and elsewhere, that as of this time, and for the likely future, I support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries only.

And, do NOT give me the "but the SCOTUS" or other comments about my looking outside the two-party duopoly.

His second-worst answer was one that was apolitical, but way wrong. It was about opiates.

In reality, fear of the feds leads many doctors to hugely UNDERprescribe properly indicated narcotics. He did people with chronic pain no favors by telling something simply not true. Politicians should be comfortable with saying "I don't know," or just not commenting beyond stereotyped answers.

The spirituality question was semi-horrible. I am not sure if there was any pandering intent on Sanders' part, but as someone not only Jewish, but someone not religiously observant in Judaism, I thought he definitely should NOT have said that we all worship god in our own ways.

Overall grade? A-, if I'm giving letter grades, and starting at the dividing point between GOP and Democrats.

===

Briefly to Clinton.

First, you're no progressive. This "gatekeeping" is bullshit. Everybody who knows you (and Sen. MBNA, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner is My Treasury Secretary Obama), knows that, without the help of Bernie Sanders. It's also why I don't use the word regularly any more.

Second, you seemed to be running against the GOP a lot, and either ignoring or running away from Sanders. (A nice try, but a "fail," on making this a one-person race, and with an "it's my turn" unspoken thought.)

Third, your non-answer on why youth aren't even close to supporting you was hilarious. But, it was probably about the best you could do without a self-inflected wound.

Fourth? The answer that you were either too dumb or too lazy to apply critical thinking to the Bush Administration's war on Iraq was like shooting yourself in the foot.

That and her essential non-answer on her $675K bankster speaking fees? She's got a Richard Nixon sized credibility gap.

That said, I'll give her a kudo for the response to the man with end-of-life issues. That said, single-payer health care, presuming it covered hospice costs, is the real answer. An even better answer would be to get beyond any Methodist scruples the likes of Clinton has (or Jewish spiritual scruples Sanders has) about assisted suicide.

I'll also give her a kudo on being personable herself at the end.

Overall grade? A scuffing C-? For a video-related, more spoofy send-up, see my previous post.

Let's have video fun with #HillarySoProgressive at the #DemTownHall

I started tuning out Hillary Clinton more and more after her "George Bush hypnotized me into the Iraq War" answer about halfway through. That's because, of course, her actual past, as captured on non-fun video, refudiates her.



I didn't see that video until after the debate, thanks to a retweet by Brains and Eggs.

But, I did start thinking about videos at various points during the debate, and so now, on to the airing of grievances.

First, in relation to the rabbi's two pockets question, we have Gollum and "what has it got in its pocketses"?



Speaking of, doesn't Gollum look a bit like Lloyd Blankfein of GoddamSachs? I have no experience with videoshopping, but in straight photoshopping, could easily make that happen.

Then, thinking of Hilary's neoliberal non-roar? Helen Reddy was probably throwing up in her mouth, wherever she is these days:



Hillary, did you "roar" 675,000 times?

And "Down on Wall Street (stuck in the corner)" is certainly no CCR:



No common touch from her.

Of course, her answers on the Iraq War and her $675K bankster speaking fees only increased her "credibility gap" with me. Speaking of "credibility gap," I thought you'd never ask:

Dear NECSS: Re-invite Richard Dawkins!

I like my coffee strong, with
a spoonful or two of Watson

Per the North East Conference on Science and Skepticism disinviting Richard Dawkins from its annual meeting, after an even-for-him offensive tweet of a cartoonish video that was designed to offend both feminists and Muslims, as covered here by Massimo Pigliucci, I had some follow-up thoughts.

Namely —

Re-invite Dawkins, but require him to speak on a particular topic.

Samples would be —
1. Is there an “Islamist gene”?
2. Is there an “offensive British curmudgeon gene, or meme”?
3. Please give a multi-level selection account for the evolution of Gnu Atheists
4. Is there a “brights gene”?

5. Do genes for "Gnu Atheism" and "Social Justice Warriordom" co-evolve?

6. Yes or no: You'd like Rebecca Watson to have your children

7. Yes or no: You think all the Atheism Plus chicks should be your groupies.

For the actual video that Dawkins tweeted, then later tried to soft-sell:

With that as illustration, I seriously note this is nothing new, in the larger scope of things, for Dawkins. His Twitter account is a paean of anti-Muslim, anti-feminist invective.

Anyway, to get back to the sarcastic main point ..

Allegedly, that's Atheism Plus darling Rebecca Watson
at left. (Link of photo implies no consent to all content.)

Or hell, let's just co-invite Dawkins and Watkins.

Sample topics —

1. Discuss how evolutionary psychology created "homo elevatoricus."

2. Discuss the merits or demerits of hotel room service beer vs. hotel room service coffee as pick-ups.

3. Discuss using alcohol as an excuse for avoiding personal responsibility. Discuss whether men or women are worse at this; discuss this as a campus, academic, and professional conference issue.

4. Discuss common psychological, physiological definitions of alcoholism, and abusive drinking.

Or, let's invite the shunted-aside soon-to-be former head of the Center for Inquiry, Ron Lindsay, with CFI merging with the Richard Dawkins Educational Foundation. Because we know the Gnus and Atheism Plus kiddies love him. And, maybe he's butthurt in private about the CFI set-aside.

And, not invite him instead of Dawkins, or Dawkins/Watson. In addition!

Insert three-way jokes here.

Note to all offended persons: Per Harvard, I'm improving my mental health. Thanks for participating.

Can The Real Donald trump Cruz in New Hampshire after the #IowaCaucus?

First, Ted Cruz's Iowa win isn't that surprising.

Iowa Republicans have long titled hard to the Religious Right. With Mike "Huckster" Huckabee and Rick ¡Santorum! Santorum pale imitations of their previous selves, this part of the Iowa GOP electorate was first come, first served for Cruz.

Second, pundits, including this one (I have ennobled myself) long wondered how good of a ground game Trump had for a caucus state, especially a very localized one like Iowa.

With all this said, the amount of Marco Rubio's late surge was, if anything, the surprise.

So, we do, despite the mainstream media, Inside the Beltway and Inside the Mopac punditry of a week ago, have a three-person, not a two-person, race, and will through Super Tuesday.

That said, New Hampshire is not good ground for Cruz.

It's not heavily Religious Right. It allows crossover voting, which will help Trump and Rubio more. And, New Hampshirites aren't New Yorkers, but they, too, probably take exception to Cruz's "New York values" dig.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins.

That said, he has two change two things.

One is to develop ever more of a real political organization.

The other, now that the gravy train of free teevee time is cut off, is sticking a crowbar in his own wallet to pay for that organization, to pay for ad time, etc.

The days and weeks ahead, and his action, or inaction, in those two areas, will tell how serious of a candidate he is, or is not.

It will also tell us if the multiply-bankrupt Trump has as much money as he claims, as he's bloviated about his allegedly vast wealth for decades, including up to the moment of his bankruptcies.

The other question is, if Trump can win, who's second?

Per all that I said above, Rubio has a shot at that. That said, Jeb! has to be looking at New Hampshire as nearly do-or-die. Doug Christie even more so. Rand Paul might get some sort of bump from the libertarian types in New Hampshire; too bad that the GOP then reverses calendars with the Democrats and puts Western-state Nevada, somewhat more libertarian on the GOP side, after Religious Right ground zero South Carolina.

And, oops, scrag THAT, on a quick update. Squirrel Hair has decided to drop out. Unless he really was on his last campaign dime, this doesn't make sense. That is, for prez politics.

Kentucky state politics? Different matter.

In the Commonwealth, Dems primary in May. But the GOP caucuses (done as Kentucky's version of a "lite" version of a semi "LBJ law" here in Texas to help Randster) — in March. I'm venturing that calendar pressures have forced his hand. He faces two low-grade GOP opponents, but Lexington Mayor Jim Gray has already announced on the Democratic side. Remember, Squirrel Hair is a first-term senator, and Kentucky isn't totally red.

I think he probably was in danger of being perceived as a "vanity" presidential candidate, not just nationally, but also within Kentucky. His GOP opponents, as noted, seem low-grade, but, nonetheless, not getting an overwhelming caucus endorsement, just a month from now, could have been embarrassing.

The rest of the field?

Expect Christie to bluster through New Hampshire then drop out. Expect Jeb to hang around until South Carolina, then barring a semi-miracle, drop out. Squirrel Hair will continue until Super Tuesday if things break this general way. Kasich, who's running a shoestring campaign, can probably afford to hang on that long.

Some of this will depend on whether Cruz is second, or is third, in New Hampshire, and what percentages everybody gets. If none of the "big three" break 25 percent, and there's more table scraps for Squirrel Hair and Jeb! especially, this could get interesting.

Carly Fiorina may finally dip into her remaining campaign chest to "buy a clue." How soon, I don't know.