Then maybe I misunderstand the basis of the original criticism?
-
-
Replying to @milpool__
The reporter's original tweet implied election fraud, which did not happen in the Iowa caucus.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
The caucus that featured blatant math errors and statements that they wouldn't be corrected? I understand the concerns about even joking about illegitimacy but that tweet ended up being pretty prescient imo.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milpool__
The irritating thing is that you *can't* fake a caucus because the vote count is public and disclosed to the individual participants. It was also an excellent result for the candidate who it was purportedly being rigged against.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
You said that a few times that night and that made me feel a little better. But after those IDP emails came out, I feel like those waters are muddy again. When I'm feeling cynical, I can't shake the idea that they used proceduralism to put a thumb on the scale.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milpool__
What thumb would they be putting on the scale, though? Why would the IDP want to self-destruct in a way that was a fiasco for them and the state? I'm asking honestly about what the theory is for the conspiratorial version of events.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
I don't think the app itself was part of a conspiracy. I'm a developer myself so I know that catastrophe was actually a very likely outcome. But once it's already a mess, could someone use that opportunity to nudge a few points by refusing to correct math errors?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milpool__
I don't think so, for this reason: the errors also seem 'organic', they are correctable, and the main benefit to candidates out of Iowa is not the mathematical result, or the tiny delegage count, but the press coverage. So nudging the election from candidate A to B is not helpful
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
I agree that the errors are genuine. And the math is correctable but afaik it's still up in the air if it *will* be corrected. And, yes, the big prize is the the candidate who wins the sde count gets a big checkmark on CNN. And that's what buttigieg got.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milpool__ @Pinboard
And I'm not saying that's what happened. But it was a weird enough series of events that I'm not going to call someone out for saying it was fishy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Discrediting fair elections hurts democracy. It's easy to do and highly irresponsible.
-
-
Replying to @Pinboard
I both agree and I respect how strongly you feel about that. I also understand why people feel suspicious at times. But would it be fair to say that statements like, "We're not going to fix basic math errors" discredit the process?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @milpool__
They do! But I think there's a very big difference between the process being broken and unfixable, and the process being rigged.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.