Thread by @Taniel

Reply of IDP-defenders increasingly: IDP cannot change results they're given.

1) Why I asked #3: If that's IDP reply, they can disown reliability & ask results to not be reported as such.

2) It's preposterous for a results-reporting body to be bound to publish that 31 > 50.

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1225886476321411072

Here. @troymprice actually said this.

Let's grant for a moment that these caucuses are anything but comical if Price is saying he must insist 31 > 50.

Why is Price then not saying point-blank these results are unreliable & should not be reported as such?

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1225905176445362176

@troymprice Let's grant for a moment that @troymprice and the IDP are locked into insisting that 31 > 50.

Let's grant the IA caucuses then still make an iota of sense.

Why is Price not saying: OK, this is unreliable, we at least should not use this count to allocate national pledged dels.

@troymprice Here's where it ALL goes off the rails.

At least one caucus (Dubuque 31) distributed AN EXTRA DELEGATE than it was allocated. That's still in IDP results.

Is Price possibly saying a local caucus can decide it wants extra delegates, report itself as that, & IDP must accept it???

@troymprice receipts:

this lists Dubuque 31 as "11 county dels" ("2.93 SDEs"). datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/…

I cannot screengrab IDP results bc too wide, but find "Dubuque 31" row on here: results.thecaucuses.org