Know I am late.
this is a joke right?
Sanders got thousands more votes. The tallies are riddled with errors, and most went against sanders. The new york times wrote an article about how they found over 100 errors in the data.
We have no idea who got the most delegates yet because we don't have accurate calculations. What we do know is that sanders got the most votes in both the 1st and 2nd rounds.
No one can possibly say they know who got the most delegates in Iowa because the results are so obviously flawed.
Obama did well with healthcare and he was a Democrat.
<br>Democrats hire people for a job and they did bad. I would say it the Democrats fault for trusting an innovation in delivering a caucus but I would say there is still some amount of blame given to the company. I don't really know how to divey the blame so I would blame both.Pete did win Iowa and Bernie is currently no winning New Hampshire so...
Hillary had more votes in 2016 yet she still lost. Since I have rebutted that claim I would you like to provide proof of the tallies riddled with errors?
If there are inaccuracies in who had the delegates why isn't their errors in the number of votes?
It being flawed doesn't mean Pete lost.
I guess you care about individual choice more than safety? Okay. I value the other.I wholeheartedly disagree. Obamacare was a disaster that penalized individual choice
A recount is happening in Iowa so Pete technically hasn’t won. And Bernie is up in NH by an average of 7-8 points.
my point is that the tallies for the purposes with delegates are horrendously flawed.
why would we use any other metric?
There were examples of delegates given to the wrong candidates.
Lots of examples of more people apparently voting in the 2nd round than the 1st, which is supposed to be impossible.
It is possible they fucked up vote counts too, but there is no reason to believe that pete got more votes than Sanders.
I can't find the source i had at the moment, but there was one case where on the 2nd round they counted the people who had moved to sanders in the 2nd round as voting for Steyer instead of sanders.
it means that the only metric by which pete "won" was massively screwed up. The metric by which we have more accurate data, ie raw votes, says sanders won. If we have 1 fairly reliable metric and 1 obviously inaccurate metric, why would you choose to use the inaccurate one?
The only reason to do that is to try to crown Pete the winner.
Something being horrendously flawed doesn't discount Pete's victory. These are two different things.
Hasn't Caucus' always been a shitshow? Your saying it was based on popular votes before. I don't think it was.
So you don't actually know there are errors?
Do you have the reasons that Sanders had more votes than Pete?
The first link doesn't show that. I'm guessing it is the second link. Do you have another link that is similar to the second one?
Do you have any evidence that previous Caucus' were not like this or were they the same?
With the available information you gave me I don't see how you got this. I find this to be a conspiracy theory do you disagree?
I guess you care about individual choice more than safety? Okay. I value the other.
A recount only means they are counting the same votes again. Very unlikely Bernie will be on top of that.
Oh yeah he is up in NH.
as i said, i don't have a subscription to the times so I can't quote the article itself. But the article is saying there are hundreds of errors.
I'm not sure I understand. He got more votes because he is more popular.
Try this one, they are discussing that the supervisor for a location tweeted out the results of that location. But the "official" results that were posted were wrong. They got delegates wrong giving some sanders delegates to Duval patrick and some warren delegates to Steyer.
no one knows. Until Sanders forced them to release the additional information, people only had the final results to work off of. They could have been rigging/screwing up this information for a long time and no one would know.
We know for a fact that there were dozens if not hundreds of errors in the data. That is not disputed.
So you’re ok with forcing people to pay for something they don’t want or need?
Plus the govt shouldn’t be deciding whether I need something or not..
Not true. Over a 100 precincts didn’t match up and since the margin is so small it’s more than plausible that Bernie will come out on top.
He won now
Why do you accept that Bernie won more votes but not that he lost on delegates? Your earlier reply didn't really answer the question.
Claim 2: Official results were differentOkay but what proof does Chris Schwartz give other than his word that his findings are more accurate?
Claim 3: Sanders delegates were given to Duval patrick, Warren and SteyerIs this Phil's tweets? I can't read it. Do you have a link to his tweets?
If someone is making a cake and you say this has a lot of strawberries in it. I ask you to ask the baker about the strawberries. You said you have but they didn't reply. Is me saying well I am not going to believe you until I get word that the cake has strawberries valid?
Not a single one of your links support this. Unless the second link you gave me was but the 1st and 3rd one are not. The 1st one is an article about supposed errors using hypothetical tables. The third one was literally a tweet. No mention of the methodology so we have is well his word his findings are correct.
I think I know what’s best for me than the govt 🤷♂️.Everyone needs healthcare because people eventually get sick. It is been demonstrated across the developed countries of how effective the public option is. I reject even answering the loaded question.
Whether you can drink and drive
Found no data supporting the claim. HistoryBuff has failed to do so currently I'll wait to see if you can do it if you want.
Okay. Well when you find yourself ill without the money to pay for it I am sure you will be wanting public healthcare but guess not now.I think I know what’s best for me than the govt 🤷♂️.
That’s not something I need. Terrible analogy.
Such a shame he couldn’t.
The counts for the delegates are considerably off.
what do you mean? the results the local official announced are different than the results that were released as official. That is a very obvious red flag.
I don't link to twitter much. Hopefully this works. But these are just the obvious errors that people on twitter found.
If the new york times can find over 100 errors in a day, there are serious problems with the numbers.
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurred
what are you talking about? The new york times found over 100 errors. The tweet showed them making 2 errors. Why are you continuing to insist errors didn't happen?
In just those 25 sites, they show pete getting 3 too many delegates and sanders getting 2 less than he should have.
Okay. Well when you find yourself ill without the money to pay for it I am sure you will be wanting public healthcare but guess not now.
Guess you don't need a police force keeping you in check and others.
This was the first link he gave. I have already addressed this. They do not know the methodology, they are going by some sort of error system that might be correct. Without that information I can't accept it since how do they know it is right?
Hopefully enough people realize how important it is.And that’s the risk people are willing to take.
Apples to oranges comparison again.
Why would they be claiming that without some sort of evidence.
No network has called Iowa. Each network has their own number crunchers and non of them have called it. It’s a number thing that multiple networks have reported.
The main claim is that the result is not 100% rn so you can’t really say Pete won. It’s your prerogative to not believe them. But different organizations have reached the same conclusion based on the numbers.
How are the delegates normally distributed? Link would be nice.
How are you verifying Chris' data to say it is accurate?
If they fixed the problem do you still have a problem?
With the link you gave they provided hypothetical errors not links to the errors.
They are apparently also legally not allowed to fix any errors that occurredLink?
If you could read the NYT article you would realize they didn't link to the error merely showed what the errors looked like.
Do you have data on how the delegates are distributed if not why are saying Pete had 3 too many?
I'm not entirely clear how they do their math. They appear to translate people's votes into state delegates, then use the state delegates to determine the actual delegates that matter. It appears to be a bit convoluted.
it isn't Chris' data. That is the data released by the person in charge of that caucus site. This is the data that was given to the democratic party, they then released different data.
if they fix all of the hundreds of problems? sure, i guess. but they aren't going to do that.
But didn't explain exactly what all those errors were. Are you saying they are lying they found errors? Or that they don't know what errors are?
Here you go. Basically, if the people at the caucus site did the math wrong and signed off on incorrect numbers, they will not fix it. They will stand by the numbers that are demonstrably wrong.
so you don't believe them that they found the errors?
Here is a link to the request from sanders. Pages 3-9 detail the specific examples they were reporting.