Clinton voter fraud at Iowa Caucus?

Rate this post

This morning, the powerhouse Drudge Report has a link to a YouTube video with the title, “Clinton voter fraud in Polk County, Iowa Caucus,” with this description:

The first chance they got they commit voter fraud.

Anything to which Drudge Report links, automatically takes on a sheen of credibility.
The video is a segment from CSPAN’s live coverage of the Democratic caucus of Polk County’s precinct #43, held in Roosevelt High School, Des Moines, on February 1, 2016.
In the caucus, votes were tallied by a primitive method of hand counting the raised hands of the people in the room. Bernie Sanders supporters are pointing to the video, claiming it showed there was Clinton voter fraud in Precinct #43 because of the discrepancy between the results of the first and second hand-counts.
 
Sanders won the first hand-count:

215 Sanders + 210 Clinton + 26 O’Malley + 8 Undecided = 459 Total

But Hillary won the second hand-count:

232 Clinton +  224 Sanders + 0 O’Malley = 456 Total

In other words, they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 22, making her the winner of Precinct #43’s caucus.
Here’s the video:

The video begins with a woman in a red “Bernie” t-shirt doing a second hand count of Sanders supporters. At the 0:43 mark, she announces the result: 223!
At the 1:20 mark, a heavy-set woman with short brown hair in a blue t-shirt says the count for Hillary is 232. At the 1:40 mark, she says that some people had already left the caucus — “some people walked out the door” — which would account for why the total of the second hand count (456) was 3 fewer than the first hand count (459).
Beg. at 4:23 mark in the video, Precinct #43’s caucus chair Drew Gentsch announces the result of the second hand count:

232 Clinton +  224 Sanders + 0 O’Malley = 456 Total

Gentsch asked the people in the room if they wanted a recount. A majority raised their hands for “No”.
The discrepancy between the first and second hand-counts can easily be explained by the O’Malley supporters and the Undecided changing their minds:

  • Some of them went for Sanders in the second hand-count, increasing his votes by 9, from the first hand-count’s 215 to 224.
  • Others went for Hillary in the second hand-count, increasing her votes by 22, from the first hand-count’s 210 to 232.
  • The discrepancy of 3 between the total number of votes at the first and second hand-counts can be explained by “some people walked out the door”.

I know this is terribly important to Bernie Sanders supporters, and far be it for me to actually defend Hillary Clinton, but I do care about the Truth.
From the CSPAN video, I’m not convinced there was voter fraud at Precinct #43. Besides, the people at that precinct overwhelmingly consented to the results of the second hand-count by rejecting a recount. If they don’t care, why should we?
As for reports that 6 precincts used coin tosses to decide Hillary as the winner, The Atlantic points out that coin flips were used where there was a tie, and that Bernie Sanders had won a sizable share of coin tosses as well, according to information provided by the state Democratic Party.
What really dismays me about the Democratic caucus at Precinct #43, Des Moines, Iowa, are the HUNDREDS of mentally-ill useful idiots assembled in that room at Roosevelt High School:
Polk County Iowa Democratic Caucus Feb. 1, 2016
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Clinton voter fraud at Iowa Caucus?

  1. Voter fraud at a democrap election , caucus , clusterfu@k . !!!!!!!!!!!!! Next thing you’ll tell me the sun rises in the east .

     
  2. in a country of sheoples. what does it matter?

     
  3. Son of the Rabbit People

    It’s good to know we are deciding our fate by counting raised hands and coin tosses.

     
  4. Did they use these methods purposefully??? Really! They couldn’t even hand out a piece of paper to everyone to have a valid count? What’s going on here and the ridiculousness of this is most likely why the three or so people just walked out and didn’t vote. It also sounds like there’s voters who really don’t want either one of them and change their minds from one vote to another. What a joke of more Democratic mindlessness! Why isn’t anyone demanding that at least a paper counter be done and all will reveal itself.

     
  5. The USSA has absurdly complicated, arcane voting procedures which most likely were put in place to more easily allow fraud.

     
  6. This ridiculousness can lead to candidates bribing some to change their minds and therefore, they will be a paid for voter.

     
  7. You left out the part where the man asking if they wanted a recount telling the crowd that the recount would probably make no difference in the total result, even if the recount did change a few votes. Therein lies the fraud in my mind.

     
    • I lack your certainty, Beverly. By “probably make no difference in the total result” despite a few votes, he was referring to the delegate count. That precinct has 9 delegates. In the end, it is up to people in that room. If they don’t object, I don’t see why we should care.

       
      • You are quite right, Eo, as I heard this procedure explained by a political scientist interviewed on the CBC 6 pm News last night. However, it is bizarre that it requires a professor to help us understand something that should be as simple as possible, to my way of thinking.

         
  8. Lorraine Irving Smith

    Who Really Won the UK GE2015 Election, check out the Quixote Reports to decide for yourself, it is not the votes that count, it is the people who are in charge of the VOTES is this democracy?

     
  9. Regarding “mentally-ill useful idiots” . . . the woman in the blue tee shirt, with dark short hair looks like she is one brick short of a load. That was the first thing I thought when I saw her picture–before reading what Dr Eowyn stated as shown above.

     
  10. Respectfully, to the author of this article, you missed the point ENTIRELY. The Clinton caucus chief blatantly lies in the video, first claiming she only adde the newcomers to the previous count, then later claiming she counted everyone individually. These are 2 very different things. That is the “fraud” part. Without her doing a complete count, there is no way of knowing if any of Clintons supporters left the room! The Sanders people did a full count of all present. The Clinton side did not! Therefore, NOBODY knows what the actual final Clinton count was! Further, you say it seems fair since the room voted on a recount. BUT the problem was not EXPLAINED to the room. Only a few people up front new what the Sanders side was saying. Simply amazed that people do not understand what actually happened here.

     
  11. Pingback: Clinton voter fraud at Iowa Caucus? | Patriots Feed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *