Bernie just won Nevada!

[Nevernose]

Not enough Hillary delegates came to the county convention, Bernie won by 600+ (Out of about 5000) and it looks like he'll take the state after all.

[grasswire]

1. yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!

In spite of the dirty tricks.

HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORAYYYYYYYYY!

[beam me up scottie]

2. Do you have a link? :)

[questionseverything]

228. this op shows the count being announced..made me smile

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017348986

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

3. From Sanders Nevada subreddit....

2390 Clinton 2958 Sanders

Which means Clark is currently flipped 55% Sanders 45% Clinton

Guy on Reddit said those numbers have been finalized and it is called, we win Nevada!!!!!

[Ed Suspicious]

5. Yes!

[reformist2]

161. Wow! #enthusiasmgap.... it's bigger than we thought!

[Agschmid]

4. So screw the will of the people who attended the caucuses?

Got it.

[Dem2]

7. The caucus system disenfranchises far more voters

than a primary, but it's OK depending on who's ox is being gored.

[Agschmid]

96. No the caucuses are a joke, and continue to be one.

[roguevalley]

136. your side didn't care enough to show up

[Agschmid]

137. We are on the same side, especially when it comes to the GE.

There are no "sides" here, we are just picking a nominee.

[Pastiche423]

166. There are definately TWO sides

The two candidates could not be more different.

And it looks like Nevada picked Bernie as the nominee!

[totodeinhere]

215. Well then why are you complaining about the "will of the people" when we are all on the

same side anyway?

[Dem2]

227. Apparently fairness only matters for ONE side?

The hypocrites here are disgusting. Apparently disenfranchising voters is just fine so long as the particular side they care for wins by cheating.

[riderinthestorm]

9. Hillary delegates failed to show up. That's on their head nt

[Major Hogwash]

148. That is really weird. You'd think if you were appointed to represent the people in your county . .

. . . you'd be sure to show up for the counting at the county convention.

Maybe they had buyer's remorse, and changed their minds.

[virtualobserver]

14. that lack of Hillary enthusiasm is biting her in the ass

[nashville_brook]

115. +1

[sadoldgirl]

15. That is a false conclusion.

In one of our counties it happen the other way around.

If the delegates for one or the other don't show up,
they won't get counted. Those are the rules.

[Autumn]

19. The Hillary delegates didn't bother to show up. That's on their backs.

[Gore1FL]

22. I agree. The Clinton supporters that didn't show up should be ashamed.

Clinton's NV organization is also guilty.

[Nevernose]

86. It's more Clinton's organization, IMO

Bernie's organizers told us about this possibility in November, and instead of cold calling have had volunteers calling delegates.

[artislife]

162. I have the name and phone number of all the delegates

and alternates for Bernie from my precinct. We vote again on April 17th. I will text all of them, offer them rides if they need it. Hell, I will even get a pizza!

[Gwhittey]

25. Yea..I agree but that is way it is.

Just like people cheering for Hillary and the bullshit Super Delegate lie.

[Perogie]

50. The process is that they have to show up for second meeting

Hillary people screwed themselves. Don't blame anyone else for their lack of enthusiasm.

[Agschmid]

99. Caucuses disenfranchise, and this is just another reason why.

[roguevalley]

139. they disenfranchised themselves. Bernie people showed and honored their pledge. hrc folks didnt

[totodeinhere]

219. Nobody was disenfranchised.

"Disenfranchised' means being denied the right to vote. But here in Nevada any registered voter had the right to show up if they wanted to. In fact they could even register on the date of the precinct caucuses. It's just that in the second round fewer Hillary supporters showed up of their own free will. That's on them.

[morningfog]

100. This is a continuation of the delegate allocation process which began

on caucus night.

Caucuses are undemocratic and inherently flawed, but thems the rules.

[Agschmid]

126. Those are the rules and they suck.

This whole nomination process is a sham IMO.

I am more frustrated with the party than I have ever been.

[morningfog]

131. I fully agree with you.

[Agschmid]

133. Thanks.

[Pharaoh]

140. Yes the whole super delegate thing is a joke

1 person 1 vote.

That is how it should be. It's called democracy.

[Turn CO Blue]

101. 2012 Ron Paul eventually won Iowa for the same reason, his delegates showed up, Mitt's did not.

But when it was Republican Presidential whack jobs, NOBODY on the left could be bothered to care or to LEARN about how the caucuses have a lot of problems.

Instead, Iowa caucus especially is held up practically as the sacred cow.

Paul's delegates coordinated and communicated every step of the way. Ron Paul wanted to be represented at the National Convention, and he eventually (after all the county conventions, congressional districts, assemblies, state convention, etc) wound up with 23 national delegates on the floor so that he would be able to propose items for the Party Platform. Which is the ultimate reason for delegates in the long run.

The Presidential preference primaries and caucuses get all the attention, the true prize in being a delegate is to propose and vote on the platform that will shape the party for years to come.

And yes, the whole system is utterly ridiculous.

But my fascination is how NOBODY on the left cared at all when Ron Paul exposed the flaw of the caucus system, tee hee hee, ain't that Ron Paul a hoot what he did to Romney? But now all the sudden good Dems have an opinion about how the local parties run these things?

I saw maybe ten stupid rules and asinine practices and unfair incidents on caucus night and at the County Convention last Saturday (10 hours of my life, ugh) that would have made any process engineer burst into tears.

[totodeinhere]

214. Not at all. The precinct caucuses were only the first step.

Clinton had a leg up after the first round but Bernie has made a comeback. That is how the system is set up and both sides have known that.

[shawn703]

216. Hillary's delegates switched to Bernie once they got to know him

Quit being so butthurt about it

[rhett o rick]

222. The problem is that the Clinton delegates aren't very committed. So blame us? nm

[Agschmid]

226. Where do you see me placing blame?

I'm not.

Caucuses are a sham.

[daleanime]

6. Gee, I wonder how, and if, the corporate media will cover this....

[SusanCalvin]

20. Your popcorn has no movie.... nt

[daleanime]

71. ......

[SusanCalvin]

75. Hey, that sounds good. Thanks! nt

[Wednesdays]

234. "By the same staff who brought you 'Anohana'"...

It must be a tear-jerker!

[daleanime]

236. But a real good...

'tear-jerker'.

[geek tragedy]

8. Bernie people are okay with thwarting the will of voters

when it suits them.

But Arizona!!!

[riderinthestorm]

12. Oh FFS, Hillary’s delegates failed to show up.

It's entirely on their heads.

[geek tragedy]

27. Just like Bernie's voters in AZ couldn't figure out how to vote early.

[azmom]

30. Not the same thing at all, but I suspect

You know that.

[NWCorona]

39. +1!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You are truly comparing those two?

Apples and rocks. For the record, I hate the Caucasus system.

[geek tragedy]

42. I'm comparing the justifications

[azmom]

44. There is no requirement for us to vote early in AZ.

So no, not the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Three points

No justification or requirement to vote early

The Governor and AZ dems agree, voter disenfranchisement is wrong and they have vowed to prevent this. The voter switcharoo happened to even employees at the Secretsry of State office. Ergo we will not know the final results for weeks. Yes. Many provisional ballots will count.

There is no comparison. NV was run by the party. People nominated to the county know they have to show if the votes are to count. Same shit, affecting the other candidate (funny you did not complain) happened in AK

I guess though you disagree with the Governor of the state of AZ and the state Democratic Party. This is the take away I take from your posts

[Lizzie Poppet]

205. No you're not. You're just desperately flailing. Again.

But by all means, keep it up. This is some funny shit.

[polly7]

41. But delegates should know a bit more about the details than normal voters, shouldn't they? nt.

[SusanCalvin]

65. One would think.... nt

[riderinthestorm]

46. Lol, sure. Go with that.

[geek tragedy]

51. Bernie will pick up net 6 delegates from this.

Clinton won the vote, he won the delegates.

[SusanCalvin]

68. He won the system as it exists. Hillary (and her delegates) could have done the same.

Reminds me of Obama in Texas.

[geek tragedy]

70. Never mind. He might gain 1 delegate. That's it. nt

[SusanCalvin]

77. OK. That's not the real point anyway.

Hillary delegates don't show up!

[Seeinghope]

111. I suppose they would have if they could have BUT problem wasn't late voting it was when

they went to vote they had long waiting lines (4 hours), people "magically" being listed as "Independents" when they had clearly voted Democratic for years and of course the people that could not vote because of just plain old screw ups in AZ which are still under review. The problems in Arizona were not because of the voters but because of the people in charge of the voting process who just so happen to have some ties to Clinton.

Your comeback is lame. Early voting is not required or necessary.

[geek tragedy]

117. You are deliberately stating a falsehood by claiming that Clinton

had ties to those who set the voting rules there. Those people are all Republicans.


http://www.snopes.com/helen-purcell-clinton-connection/

That is absolutely not the case, so please do not say things that are not true in order to peddle whiny crazy conspiracy theories.

Btw, Sanders still lost Nevada, in addition to getting his ass kicked in Arizona.

[Seeinghope]

187. First of all what happened in AZ is voter fraud

I may have been mistaken by the Helen Purcell connection and I will concede that point.

Sanders got his ass kicked in AZ because AZ had some kind of "computer malfunction that "changed voter's status from Democrat to Independent" making it impossible for them to vote

2nd the Independents could not have their ballots counted because they were provisional and basically not "allowed" to vote in the Primary. You could only be Democratic, Republican or Green. Libertarian's were not allowed to have their vote count either.......who made up this fucking law? It is unconstitutional!

Hillary Clinton was called winner while the polls were still open. How could they call her the winner when there still were so many votes to count, votes to be cast. ESPECIALLY when they are getting all of these problems with the whole process that day?

Most of the long ass lines were in Maricopa County where Bernie Sanders had a lot of support.

People do work and have small children. Waiting 4-5 hours in line to vote is not only outrageous but made it impossible for many voters to vote.

A fair count was never made. You cannot say that all of the votes turned away because of An unconstitutional law...which it should be...why should one or two or three parties be allowed to vote in the Primaries but not others?

If there are proven glitches in the computers with people that have been voting Democratic for years and all of a sudden they are registered unknowingly as an Independent......something is up.

IF none of those games went on in AZ we would have seen a different outcome.

[geek tragedy]

195. Sanders got his ass kicked fair and square.

The crazy talk is just excuses

[Seeinghope]

201. If you call that fair and square than I'm glad that I wouldn't ever have to put my trust in you

And you are with the candidate that you deserve.

[geek tragedy]

224. Those of us who live in the reality-based community do nt

[Luminous Animal]

150. They showed up to vote.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

13. I thought you had said Hillary had more enthusiastic supporters...

One of y'all Hillarians spammed that poll here...

What happened? Why did so many Hillarian delegates not show up to the county convention?

[virtualobserver]

17. why couldn't the Hillary people be counted on. Don't they give a shit?

[geek tragedy]

24. Why couldn't Bernie voters figure out how to vote early in Arizona?

[virtualobserver]

56. were not talking about voters here....these were supposedly committed Hillary delegates?

[Politicalboi]

118. Maybe if they knew that there would be

ONLY 60 polls open when it should have been over 200. And that woman has ties to Clinton. Again they cheated. This is why they don't get my support if dog forbid she's the nominee. I hate cheaters= I hate Clinton's.

[geek tragedy]

119. The Arizona official responsible for those voting places

does not have ties to Clinton. That is a lie.
http://www.snopes.com/helen-purcell-clinton-connection/

[SusanCalvin]

18. See #16. nt

[geek tragedy]

29. See my other posts, no moral credibility for Bernie people to complain

about Arizona, or closed primaries, or superdelegates for that matter.

[SusanCalvin]

37. You think I'm going to look up all your other posts?

Or, even more improbably, that I remember them off the top of my head?

Oooooookaaaaaay.....

[geek tragedy]

45. basically don't want to hear any more bleating about AZ

[SusanCalvin]

47. Don't click, then. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. You might want to go tell that to the ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/arizona-voting-investigation-department-justice/index.html

They are requesting nothing more than a DOJ probe, and I agree with them. But quick, send them an email and point out why they are wrong.

[geek tragedy]

184. Talking about people trying to question the legitimacy

of the outcome. Of course fighting against vote suppression should continue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Now I love backpedals

[JackRiddler]

26. Did the Sanders delegates make the Clinton delegates not show up?

No. Given that, should they have switched some of their votes to make sure she came out ahead?

What we are seeing is that the processes are usually flawed, caucus or primary.

[TheBlackAdder]

194. The centuries old method -- Garlic Clove Necklaces

[Perogie]

54. you have no clue how the process works

[geek tragedy]

59. Yes, it's a double caucus format

This is not a good look for the state party. Why should people show up on caucus day if those results may not count?

[riderinthestorm]

66. These were committed Hillary delegates who failed to show up nt

[SusanCalvin]

72. I love it. They should have known better and apparently didn't. nt

[Nevernose]

78. We clearly disagree on Sanders/Clinton

And the primary as a whole. But on this? You couldn't be more correct. I'm happy on one level, but it's been a goddamned EMBARASSING clusterfuck for weeks.

We Bernie supporters are happy, obviously, but are standing side by side with Clinton's people in demanding a change for next time. Why? Because it's ALWAYS a clusterfuck in Nevada and it's pissed off ALL the Democrats, not just the ones that prefer Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

83. And, for better/worse this doesn't dramatically affect

delegate allocation for convention which (as I should have surmised) is pegged to caucus results not convention.

It may narrow Clinton's win from 5 to 3-4 delegates.

[SusanCalvin]

93. Uh, then why are you "bleating"?

Sorry (picture Bluto), couldn't resist. Feel free to put me on ignore.

https://m.

[Perogie]

90. They do count if you show up

That's how it works. It's an easy process, you're making it more difficult. Plus saying why should people show up if their vote doesn't count shows that you have no clue how it works.

Simple Caucus
People show up and delegates are assigned each candidate
Later date those delegates show up for official count.

If the Hillary people were too lazy to show up it's not the fault of the caucus or Sanders. It's the LAZY Hillary people that are at fault.

[SusanCalvin]

102. Or possibly uninformed, but, yep same general idea.

I think it's hilarious (including the bleating). Reminds me of Obama in Texas.

[pugetres]

157. The delegates were elected at the precint caucuses.

The precinct captains ask who is interested in being a delegate to the county and then everyone in that precinct gets to vote on who will go to represent them.

The Clinton delegates who choose to *NOT SHOW UP* were *NOT* disenfranchised like the voters in AZ were. Their voices were heard in Feb., their selection of Clinton was counted, and then, they volunteered and were elected to go on to the country convention. But, they decided not to show up.

It is nothing like what occurred in AZ.

[shawn703]

217. Hillary's delegates switched to Bernie when they got to know him

Quit being so butthurt about it

[srobert]

230. I'm not.

I was a Bernie delegate at yesterdays convention in Las Vegas. It's appalling that Clinton delegates did not live up to the responsibility they had to the caucus voters who elected them. Sanders delegates did as they were charged to do with great enthusiasm. The nominating process is unfair in many ways, most of which favor Mrs Clinton. Are you ok with those? Please explain again, why do super-delegates exists?

[msongs]

10. 6000 votes? total? wow there are more people at the local shopping mall than that nt

[oregonjen]

21. DELEGATES not votes

[Logical]

225. Lol, I think you are really confused! Nt

[Fairgo]

11. Is this what they mean by "claw back"?

I tip my hat to the tenacious supporters.

[thereismore]

159. Claw back! Hahaha that stings. nt

[SusanCalvin]

16. So Arizona has a two-step?

That's the reverse of the (former) Texas two-step? Interesting. Well, to those who understand the system go the spoils...!

[senseandsensibility]

28. Is this confirmed?

Sorry, I don't know enough about the process to evaluate this on my own.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

31. Yes the Clark Count Democratic Party announced the final count on twitter

https://twitter.com/ClarkDems/status/716408177307168768

[geek tragedy]

34. Clinton won the popular vote by 10% Sanders wins the caucus of delegates

by 15% or so.

[Nevernose]

61. Popular by 5%

Considering he went from 0% to 47% was remarkable.

I'm at the county convention right now. There was a serious problem on caucus day with supporters in both sides finishing through, and due to confusing emails and arcane rules, more clusyerfuck occurred.

The simple version? Hillary's elected delegates didn't show up where they were delegated to go. Great feeling for me, but my wife and friends who have been volunteering for Clinton are all a little heartbroken, obviously

[Cheese Sandwich]

32. I thought Nevada was a tie. Still a tie right?

This can't change the total delegate count by much if any at all.

[geek tragedy]

36. Sanders will win more DNC delegates from Nevada despite losing the day of the caucus vote

A fiasco

[Cheese Sandwich]

53. I don't think this will change the final delegate count at all.

[SusanCalvin]

55. In your opinion.

As far as I can currently make out, no one was disenfranchised here. Looks like they just neglected to show up. Heh.

[Autumn]

38. Do we have conformation?

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

43. Yes

https://twitter.com/ClarkDems/status/716408177307168768

[Nevernose]

48. I'm in the room.

Technically it's just Clark County at this point, but that's where the people all live

[Eric J in MN]

40. Next time, we should have no delegates and just use the popular vote

...to determine the Democratic nominee.

I say that in spite of Bernie Sanders, whom I support, benefiting from the current system today in Nevada.

[SusanCalvin]

60. Oh, absolutely.

But right now, to those who understand the current system and show up go the spoils.

[OKNancy]

49. Clark County not Nevada

Clinton won Clark county by 10 pts. Caucus system sucks.

However Sanders will only pick up one or two delegates at the most.

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

57. No the likely result since Clark is the most populous...

Is the original delegate estimate will be flipped, there is still the state convention remaining

[w4rma]

58. Look at the map. Bernie has, also, won all of the other large counties in Nevada.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/feb/20/nevada-south-carolina-live-results-primary-caucuses

[riderinthestorm]

64. If Clark County flips to Bernie, he wins Nevada as far as I can tell nt

[Nevernose]

67. I'm in the County Convention

And am a delegate to the state con. It's probably a total flip, because Vegas is where the people all live.

No difference in the long run, but for those of us who didn't give up on Bernie EVEN AFTER WE LOST it feels pretty exciting

Condolences if you're a Clinton supporter, I'm not a Clinton hater

[OKNancy]

109. yes, I realize the numbers about Clark county

Jon Ralston says it probably won't "flip the state" and even if it does it won't matter in the long run.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports

[krawhitham]

145. Clark County is 73% of Nevada

Clark County on election day had 8,690 delegates and the state had 11,985 (73%)


On Election day Bernie lost the state by 641 delegates, but he lost Clark County by 847 delegates

After today's results he wins Clark County by 578 delegates

If all other counties remain as they were on election day he now wins the state by 784 delegates[

[hrmjustin]

52. Just spent the day phone banking for NY and so this horrible news.

[Nonhlanhla]

62. Another reason to reject caucuses

This makes me both sad (as a Hillary supporter), and even more uncomfortable with the caucus system.

And I can only imagine the wailing here if the opposite had happened: if Bernie had won Nevada by 6 points and Hillary walked away with more delegates in the end.

[riderinthestorm]

69. As a Sanders supporter, I agree with you. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

81. I really don't like the caucus system

I especially don't understand why it is done in layers, first electing county delegates on up, rather than resolving the final state delegate split on election day- based on the results that day. It should not be set up in a way that is subject to shifting results, but that is the way that it is set up. I know that the Clinton campaign would have accepted a few extra delegates to their total today if if were some of the Sanders county delegates who failed to show up.

Having said that you and other Clinton supporters have my sincere sympathy regarding this ridiculous way delegates are chosen. Yes I would have been among the wailer had Bernie lost delegates this way, and I would have been justified to be upset, just as you are now. But this isn't because the Sanders camp did anything improper. They just were better at showing up.

[Nonhlanhla]

110. Yes, I know the Bernie camp did not do anything wrong here

Just like I know that Hillary's campaign were not responsible for the stuff that happened in Arizona.

[bkkyosemite]

144. It should be voting by paper ballot and counted with all there..nothing else. no caucus no

super delegates nothing but the popular vote done legally and honestly.

[Scuba]

63. So why didn't the Clinton delegates show up? Did BernieBro's threaten them? Or were ...

.... they just so disgusted with what they saw in their own campaign that they couldn't stomach it?

[Nevernose]

74. IRL I see none of DU's animosities

We've been here since last night (with a break for sleep) complimenting each orger's candidates, hating on Trump, discussing politics, and -- just like Clinton and Bernie -- agreeing on 94% of stuff.

My wife was a Clinton volunteer, as were several friends. I even went to their first couple of meetings and taught them how the door knock script worked, how the houses from the databases are chosen, basically all the same stuff a paid Clinton staffer should have done.

Of course, I worked much harder for Bernie

[Land of Enchantment]

91. Thanks for the reports--reminds me of CoffeeCat in Iowa. nt

[KingFlorez]

73. Remember if this happens in reverse you cannot complain

Can't have things both ways.

[SusanCalvin]

80. No problem. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

88. I think electing county delegates who then have to meet to elect state delegates later sucks

I think that even though it worked to Bernie's favor this time. But that system sucks. Still I am proud that Bernie's people were disciplined and committed enough to show up when they had to. I would be really pissed at some of Clinton's county delegate who didn't show if I was a Clinton backer. Her campaign might have been asleep at the wheel also, though I've seen some reports elsewhere that efforts were made to thin the rank of Sanders delegates at that County Convention that didn't get the job done obviously.

[Metric System]

76. And Sanders supporters scream about Superdelegates being undemocratic.

[Nevernose]

82. Super delegates ARE undemocratic

Politically powerful people choose them with no input from voters.

In our caucus, we all elected delegates -- friends and neighbors -- to vote on our behalf at the county convention. If 600 of those people don't show up, that's on those 600 people, not democracy.

[Metric System]

87. Caucuses are not democratic. They do not represent one person, one vote and they disenfranchise

the elderly, the disabled, and many working people.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. I agree that primaries are far more democratic

That doesn't mean that the current Superdelegate system isn't anti-democratic though.For a case in point, New Hampshire had an honest primary where Sanders won 61% of the vote. So far Clinton has 6 Superdelegates from NH while Sanders has none. Which leaves Sanders and Clinton tied for NH delegates now even though he beat her in the primary (not a caucus) by over 20%

[SusanCalvin]

107. Yes, but leave out the supers and they are not tied.

In a rational world, supers mean NOTHING at this point.

[Perogie]

103. No one stops people from showing up to a caucus.

If people want to cast their vote they need to show up. It's no different than paper voting. If I vote and you don't you can't complain that it disenfranchises people if you didn't get counted.

Caucuses are open to all who want to attend.

[Metric System]

113. Caucusing requires setting aside hours of time and doing a lot of standing around and waiting. You

really can't see how that hurts the elderly, the disabled and workers?

[Perogie]

146. Don't be condescending to me

#1 Voting in general takes a lot of time. See example below
#2 You're changing your goalpost. First you said that it disenfranchises people because of one vote for one person.
I replied to your statement with a fact that caucuses are open for all to vote. You implied they aren't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/voting-lines-stretch-to-e_n_140401.html

Stop making things up to try to save your argument.

[whatthehey]

138. Apart from winning the elections to either office or DNC

[wildeyed]

84. Right?

Remember, it is only undemocratic or if it hurts their candidate. But if it hurts their candidate, it is a CONSPIRACY by the ESTABLISHMENT!!!11!!!

[SusanCalvin]

85. No screaming here.

My problem is with the M$M reporting totals that include superdelegates as if that matters (or should) at this point.

I am currently assuming that all superdelegates will go with the winner as selected by the voters/caucus goers. Hope I'm right.

[synergie]

89. No wonder Bernie loves the Cacuses, so much easier to disenfranchise voters and

steal elections. Way to honor the will of the people there, BS.

[Nevernose]

94. What?!?

That's how caucuses work here: we elect delegates, six weeks later they vote at the county level, six weeks after that a smaller pool of delegates voted at State.

Hillary's elected delegates -- 600, or about 1/5 -- didn't show up.

If you want to be pissed, be pissed off at the people who swore to be here, and the people who swore to just be ALTERNATES -- who didn't show up.

[Robbins]

105. that's rich

coming from campagin which committed or benefited from voter frad in Iowa,Nevada,Mass,MO,Illinois,Ohio,and arizona.

[SusanCalvin]

233. Good grief. Bernie didn't set up these systems. nt

[basselope]

92. I wonder why so many Clinton supporters decided to abandon her campaign?

[SusanCalvin]

95. Or didn't get their information and do their job.... nt

[NWCorona]

98. Me too!

Seems kinda weird that many wouldn't show up.

[winter is coming]

122. It's not that unusual for some delegates to not make the convention.

People get sick, they have unexpected family/work responsibilities, their cars die, etc., etc.

It's the ultimate example of "decisions are made by the people who show up." I guess there just weren't enough alternate delegates there to take up the slack.

[basselope]

154. Its a LARGE number.

600 out of what, about 3000?


I could see up to 5% having issues, which SHOULD be for both campaigns, but one campaign to have 20% of their delegates not show up.. that says something else about the depth of their commitment.

[frylock]

104. Buyer's remorse?

[Lucinda]

106. Apparently not.

[Nevernose]

108. I'm literally in the room

There is, of course, still the state convention to go

[Tarc]

112. There may be cause here for the DNC to strip Nevada's delegates and refuse to seat them

I hope the Bern thinks that +10 delegate swing was worth it...

[Lucinda]

116. DNC rules mandate that district level delegates reflect caucus voting, not county convention voting

according to a post about the rules on Geek Tragedy's thread. So there may be a tiny shift, but it appears Hillary still has the state:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511633057

[Tarc]

120. Great Googly Moogly, what a mess

Good to hear, but this is yet another reason to scrap this silly caucus thing.

[jfern]

125. I'm pretty sure there are no such rules

[Lucinda]

172. Link:

http://nvdems.3cdn.net/efafb4788ed845d0d3_08m6i2zsp.pdf

[Kentonio]

173. Please quote where you think that rule is at the link

Because I just read the link and I can't see anything even close.

[Lucinda]

175. The same page number referenced in the graphic in Geek Tragedy's link above.

Somewhere around page 13 or 14

[Kentonio]

180. Thank you, I think I see the section you mean.

[Lucinda]

181. Sorry if it wasn't clear before! I'm multi-tasking badly tonight.

[jfern]

207. Green papers makes it clear it's from the state convention delegates

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D

[Jarqui]

127. Since he was down 5, Bernie;s campaign may well think so

Further, it seems like what occurred with within the rules :
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D

So why should the DNC refuse to seat delegates selected by the rules?

It wouldn't completely shock me because Hillary owns the corrupt DNC but their action would appear to be unfounded based upon the rules.

[SusanCalvin]

142. Thanks for the info. nt

[totodeinhere]

220. Not at all. Sanders supporters followed the rules to the letter.

Those are the same rules that both sides initially agreed to.

[Tarc]

229. Either way, the Sanders camp is going to get burned (or "Berned", ha ha) on this

What will matter here more is the perception that Sanders himself is manipulating rules to go against the will of the electorate. Clinton will have a field day with this from here on out.

The cherry on top is that per "the rules" that you're seemingly fond of, this will likely only net him +1 in the delegate count;

https://mobile.twitter.com/CJBear71/status/716411383282147328/photo/1

[SusanCalvin]

231. If Clinton does indeed have a field day,

It would be a dishonest one in this case. I kinda don't think her actual campaign will, though.

[Herman4747]

114. Appears as though a bunch of Hillary delegates...

changed their minds about supporting her.

I don't blame them.

[Jarqui]

129. When they found out Huerta, Clinton , Gutierrez & Castro lied to them about

Sanders record, maybe they didn't feel obligated. I can't say that I blame them.

To me, what appears to have happened in Nevada is poetic justice. I hope it stands.

[Robbins]

135. yep

bernie may have won a big victory today.i have no doudt the establishment will fight tooth and nail to try to overturn it.But,again it shows bernie has some dedicated people behind him.and this race isn't over.

[Major Hogwash]

152. Do you really think that is what happened?

It seems to me that they shirked their responsibility if they did just what you think they did.

This seems really odd to me.

And so, rolling the dice on her representatives not showing up for this count at this time seems to me to be about a 100,000 to 1 shot.
Maybe even more.

Damn!

[Jarqui]

168. I feel very strongly that those folks lied about Sanders records to get votes.

Whether that had anything to do with this specific result today, I'm not sure.

It wouldn't shock me but I really don't know. I was outraged by the degree of dishonesty so if this development sticks, some justice got done (whether it had anything to do with it happening or not).

[thereismore]

167. I don't blame them for changing their minds but to assume that their change

of mind represents the people who elected them... is problematic. This sucks for Hillary.

As much as I am happy for Bernie, I feel disgusted by the system that allows it.

[pugetres]

169. That is what I'm thinking, too.

Consider the gains that Sanders makes from month to month in the polls.

Clark Co. Dem. delegates had more than a month to rethink things...

[Mudcat]

121. But yesterday's headlines said Hillary people are the most motivated...

[reformist2]

164. That was an April Fool's story, right? :)

[AzDar]

123. ...

[Nanjeanne]

124. WOW. Wonderful News. Has Hillary congratulated Bernie yet?

Did she ever congratulate him on Alaska, Hawaii or Washington?

[StevieM]

130. I don't know whether they are still calling each other after every contest, but there is no reason

for her to call him about Nevada--she won the state.

Nevada is a Clinton win, just like it was in 2008.

If the circumstances of the caucus allows Sanders--or Obama in 2008--to get more delegates, then so be it. Either way, the person who got the most votes is the winner of the contest.

[PatrickforO]

128. Yeah, baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Feel the BERN!!!!

[kgnu_fan]

132. Happy!

[StevieM]

134. Nevada is a Clinton win, just like it was in 2008.

If the circumstances of the caucus allows Sanders--or Obama in 2008--to get more delegates, then so be it. Either way, the person who got the most votes is the winner of the contest.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. It would be if the popular vote tally had even one damn thing to do with the nominating process

but it doesn't. This is all about the delegates. That's all it's about.

And I love that you think it's all about the 'circumstances allowing' two candidates in a row to defeat Hillary there. The circumstances! Hilarious.

[StevieM]

178. Nope. Hillary beat Obama in Nevada in 2008 and Sanders in 2016.

Declaring a winner in a given contest is based on who got the most votes in that contest.

Bill Clinton lost Connecticut to Jerry Brown in 1992, while getting more delegates. It was a huge story at the time, since Clinton was believed to have the nomination locked up. To some extent, it helped precipitate Ross Perot's entry into the race, since it made Clinton look weak.

Hillary Clinton came in third in Iowa in 2008. But she was projected to get one more delegate than John Edwards. Her third place showing was an enormous deal at the time.

The day of the 2008 Nevada Caucuses Hillary was declared the winner by every single media outlet, and the next day her picture was on the front page of every major paper in the country. Hillary was not defeated in Nevada in 2008 and she was not defeated there in 2016.

The concept of winning a state is arbitrary and based on how we choose to define the word win. Declaring the person who got the most votes the winner isn't exactly a crazy policy. More importantly, it is what we have always done, so I hardly see how you can call my assessment desperate or ridiculous. Common place would be a better description.

My use of the phrase "circumstances" was simply referring to delegate allocation process. I am not sure why you see that as hilarious. You seem to be implying that I am trying to diminish her being defeated as a result of the voters rejecting her. But Nevada did not reject her, she was the winner of the most votes and the expected winner of the most delegates, based on where those votes were cast, district-wise. "Circumstances" simply referred to how the state convention played out, which is independent of what the voters did or how they felt about the two candidates.

Not that any of this matters, because the latest I am hearing is that Clinton actually will get more pledged delegates to the national convention from Nevada after all.

And on a total change of subject...have you warmed towards Elizabeth Warren yet? I know you were skeptical of her in the past. Has she won you over? Personally, I am already prepared to support her in 2024.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

183. lol

wrong - i do not like the process - but Sanders take Nevada

[StevieM]

188. You are wrong for several reasons.

First, the story has been debunked. Sanders will not be getting more pledged delegates to the national convention from Nevada after all.

Second, the winner of the popular vote in a given state has always been regarded as the winner of that contest, regardless of who gets more delegates. Bill and Hillary have both lost (or took third) in major contests under that standard.

Third, saying "LOL" seems a bit out of place. You are dismissing my call of Hillary as the winner--if this story had been true--as ridiculous and laughable. But in 2008 Hillary was proclaimed the winner, even though it was clear on the day of the caucus that Obama would be getting more delegates. Moreover, if the story had been true I doubt Sanders would have gone out and announced to his supporters that it turns out he was the winner of Nevada.

I discussed this in a post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1633779

~snip~

Nope. Hillary beat Obama in Nevada in 2008 and Sanders in 2016.

Declaring a winner in a given contest is based on who got the most votes in that contest.

Bill Clinton lost Connecticut to Jerry Brown in 1992, while getting more delegates. It was a huge story at the time, since Clinton was believed to have the nomination locked up. To some extent, it helped precipitate Ross Perot's entry into the race, since it made Clinton look weak.

Hillary Clinton came in third in Iowa in 2008. But she was projected to get one more delegate than him. Her third place showing was an enormous deal at the time.

The day of the 2008 Nevada Caucuses Hillary was declared the winner by every single media outlet, and the next day her picture was on the front page of every major paper in the country. Hillary was not defeated in Nevada in 2008 and she was not defeated there in 2016.

The concept of winning a state is arbitrary and based on how we choose to define the word win. Declaring the person who got the most votes the winner isn't exactly a crazy policy. More importantly, it is what we have always done, so I hardly see how you can call my assessment desperate or ridiculous. Common place would be a better description.

My use of the phrase "circumstances" was simply referring to delegate allocation process. I am not sure why you see that as hilarious. You seem to be implying that I am trying to diminish her being defeated as a result of the voters rejecting her. But Nevada did not reject her, she was the winner of the most votes and the expected winner of the most delegates, based on where those votes were cast, district-wise. "Circumstances" simply referred to how the state convention played out, which is independent of what the voters did or how they felt about the two candidates.

Not that any of this matters, because the latest I am hearing is that Clinton actually will get more pledged delegates to the national convention from Nevada after all.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

190. lol

in a month none of her supporters will show

down down down - hillary only goes down

welcome to ignore

[StevieM]

200. Nothing you wrote here has anything to do with how we declare winners and losers

in the the primary and caucus contests. Even if Hillary is falling apart, as you say, that still doesn't relate to what I am talking about.

I can't believe that anything I wrote is enough to get me ignored. I didn't think I was nasty or anything.

[Dawson Leery]

141. Nice. Bernie can only win by disenfranchising voters.

[SusanCalvin]

143. AFAIK, not what happened here. nt

[smiley]

147. Clinton delegates didn't show up.

That's what happened here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Becuase the clinton supporters did not show up?

If anybody disenfranchised the will of voters was the delegates that did not show up. The rules are quite clear on this.

[Dawson Leery]

151. Highly unfair that they have to show up twice.

Sad that such a complex system is what is giving Bernie is only real wins.

In legitimate primaries, Hillary kicks ass all the way.

[basselope]

155. Actually, Bernie wins those.

[smiley]

156. Super delegates are also unfair.

But that's the rule unfortunately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Look this happened in AK to Bernie delegates

that did not show up and I saw none of you complaining about that.

I do not like caucuses, but these, to quote you guys, are the rules that both candidates agreed to. Go ahead and blame the D party of Nevada for choosing to run a caucus system.

For the record, delegates have to show up at county conventions after regular primary elections as well, IF they do not show up, they can become alternates or replaced. After the County conventions, another smaller slate of delegates will be chosen for the STATE and from there a final slate for the NATIONAL. That final slate reflects the delegates assigned for the state that you see in the pledged delegate totals for each state.

This is regardless of whether you did this in a regular primary, or a caucus election.

I guess I am going to continue to be extremely frustrated as to how little people who claims to know politics actually know about politics and how those pledged delegates are elected.

[SusanCalvin]

197. Yep.

Rules is rules. Don't like 'em? Change 'em next time, not on-the-fly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

202. What Ralston is saying is the more technical side of this

but since this was certified this will be hashed later by legal teams. It should be entertaining to watch that though. The net delegate gain (Pledged) when all said and done is probably going to be max a total of 2. (I am being generous here)

[SusanCalvin]

203. No practical difference (one hopes), but it is fun

(in a serious kind of way) to observe the bleating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. Now you realize that if people in California ask

I will have to write another one of those wonderful nuts and bolts articles? Oy... I feel like a college teacher when I write those. (Alas one role of media is to educate people... so please, please especially bernie sanders folks, don't ask... I really hate to have to write these articles).

What is annoying though is that people on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND should know better. Like when (insert campaign here, it happens every time) we have more popular voters. Like I give a shit. What counts is pledged delegates not the popular vote.

But when I saw the posts, I went... ok.ok, what the hell does this matter for the pledged? Not really much, but this is an extremely close race (CNN should be notified though), and that extra delegate or two could be a difference with certain models.

[SusanCalvin]

210. Thank you for doing what you do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. You welcome

[dana_b]

218. oh yeah, like Arizona?

[RandySF]

153. Debunked

[Nevernose]

185. Again: I am STILL in the room

If the state delegates vote/appear as promised, then Bernie wins Nevada.

600+ Hillary voters didn't show up.

But, regardless of what anyone else is saying or hypothesizing, I am literally in the convention center. I have personally spoken to Clinton, Sanders, and Party officials. It is what it is, and ultimately probably meaningless, but it is in no way "debunked."

[pantsonfire]

237. They f'ed up, why let down the voters that elected them....n/t

[aspirant]

163. Let's see:

Little rallies = little County Convention participation

[SheilaT]

170. So all of the Hillarybots here

who condescendingly told us that those huge rallies for Bernie were meaningless, because hardly any of the attendees would vote in the end, now that their duly elected delegates in the caucus a few weeks ago couldn't be bothered to attend the next level of that system, now they're complaining about how UNFAIR it is!

Listen up everyone. Like the caucus system or hate it, it's not mysterious and impossible to fathom. It's always a several layer process, that's not breaking news. You go to your local caucus. You stand up for your candidate. If you become a delegate for your candidate you need to go on to the next level, usually a county or congressional district convention, and then if elected a delegate again, it's on to the state convention.

These are not rules that were made up last week.

So boo-hoo to all of you who just don't understand that if the Hillary Clinton delegates couldn't be bothered to attend the next level, then too bad. You lose. To me that lack of commitment speaks volumes about just how strong her support is. Which is not very.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. I do not think too many people (on both sides mind you)

understand the minutiae. As to the multi step process, that also happens with regular primaries. I concluded a while ago that most people here have no clue how any of this shit works. Some even are elected as delegates to the county, state, what have you. And it is the job of the campaign organization to explain this.

[SheilaT]

177. But the people who participate in the caucuses and

become delegates to the next level should feel compelled to learn exactly what is required of them.

I realize that my awareness stems from having participated in caucuses in two different states and enjoying the process very much. But I have zero sympathy for those here who are crying foul because the delegates for their candidate couldn't be bothered to follow through. Fuck em.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. It goes as well for CA delegates

how people are elected from county to state and then national is actually not that different from the caucus system. They are chosen at county meetings soon after the election. So in San Diego I suspect the primary is on June 7, they will have the votes for the delegates to go to the State at most a week after that.

You are aware of this becuase you have done caucuses. I am aware of this since I have covered the state convention. I asked... how the hell are people elected?

I could go into deep geeky level. But it is a frustration of mine, to see people discussing things. And it is not like parties do not post these rules on state party websites..

[FlatBaroque]

193. Remember, Harry Reid had a hand in making sure union workers

showed up to caucus for Hillary. Shockingly, their enthusiasm waned a bit.

[Punkingal]

221. Bingo!

There you have it.

[SusanCalvin]

232. Or those he rounded up could not make yesterday's caucus?

I think you may have hit on something here.

[riderinthestorm]

171. Thank you for participating!

[RichVRichV]

176. What's interesting is both candidates were missing a substantial amount of delegates.

Bernie had 2958 out of 3920 available delegates show up (or 75.45%).

Hillary had 2390 out of 4767 available delegates show up (or 50.14%).




Seriously, did either campaign think to do a get out the vote on their own pledged state delegates? Even Bernie's attendance numbers aren't great. Hillary's are down right atrocious.

[SheilaT]

182. Interesting that each candidate had a

noticeable fall-off in delegates who showed up. But even more telling is that only half of the Hillary delegates showed, whereas three fourths of the Bernie ones did. Huge, huge difference, I'd say in real support and enthusiasm for each candidate.

[RichVRichV]

191. If what's being posted at the Las Vegas Sun is true, there might be more to this then just

not showing up.


People in the comments section are claiming that an email was sent to all the delegates (Hillary and Bernie) that miss-informed them that if they registered on Friday the 1st, they didn't need to show up on Saturday the 2nd. Apparently us Bernie supporters are jaded enough to not believe anything without verifying.


-Las Vegas Sun


I have no idea if any of this is true. But it is getting more interesting. Someone may have really screwed up. If this is true I'm curious what the Friday registration numbers were versus the Saturday attendance numbers.

[Nevernose]

198. Totally true, but also accurate

If you registered for the convention, your vote was also registered. You didn't HAVE to come today; only the paranoid showed up.

Virtually all of the delegate votes were cast weeks ago online, yesterday night in the SEIU building, or this morning.

You only needed to physically BE here (and I am still fucking here) if you wanted to be a delegate to the state or national convention. The votes were cast before the first delegate entered the doors, although the police-and-lawyer filled counting started at one.

[RichVRichV]

208. If that's true then how did Bernie go from being down 847 delegates in the county to being up 578?

Did half the Hillary voters not bother to do any of that entire process?

[Nevernose]

223. Exactly that.

And more than a few Bernie voters, too.
To be fair, the "process" was a form with name, address, and presidential preference, and it was fillable online for a while or in person. Not much excuse for anybody not to have gone.

The county party is openly pro-Hillary, so there weren't any shenanigans. The process was open and transparent. Just a fuck up made possible by Byzantine, confusing rules and a piss poor state party.

[Nevernose]

186. I'm ecstatic that Bernie won, but caucuses are bullshit

They're expensive, they're complicated, at least in Nevada they involve bizarre rules about delegates, and the Nevada Democratic Party couldn't organize their way out the front door.

[Nevernose]

204. Actually FAR fewer delegates than that

That number is all registered delegates, all registered alternates, and a few hundred "delegates at large" (alternates to the alternate).

915 alternates, 604 at large, according to the texts I was sending as the number was read

[quantumjunkie]

192. K&R

[drm604]

196. When I do a Google search the headlines look like there's a lot of disagreement as to who won Nevada

Some say Clinton. Some say Sanders.

[w4rma]

235. "A binding Presidential Preference vote will occur by 10AM PDT on 14 May"

● These County Conventions choose the county's delegates to the Nevada State Democratic Convention. While a non-binding Presidential Preference Poll is conducted during the Conventions, delegates at the County level are not bound to their declared Presidential preference. The number of national convention can be estimated base on voting in today's convention. No national convention delegates are selected until the state Convention on 14 May.

Saturday 14 May - Sunday 15 May 2016: The Nevada State Democratic Convention convenes to choose 35 of Nevada's 43 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. A binding Presidential Preference vote will occur by 10AM PDT on 14 May. A mandatory 15 percent threshold is required in order for a presidential contender to be allocated National Convention delegates at either the congressional district or statewide level. Presidential candidates have the right to approve their pledged delegates.

● 23 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention from the State's congressional districts.

● In addition, 12 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention as a whole.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D

[Nanjeanne]

199. Lucy Flores says Sanders in her tweet

https://twitter.com/lucyflores/status/716410087477121024

[Else You Are Mad]

209. What it comes down to...

Is that Sanders supporters are more enthusiastic than Clinton supporters. This may be an indication of the GE.

[Miles Archer]

212. Sanders pulls a win in Clark County after county Democratic convention

http://news3lv.com/news/local/sanders-pulls-a-win-in-clark-county-after-county-democratic-convention



LAS VEGAS (KSNV News3LV) — Thousands of delegates showed up for the Clark County Democratic Convention this weekend.

The convention, held Saturday at Cashman Center in Las Vegas, hosted delegates and alternates of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, elected by their precincts during the Feb. 20 caucuses.

During the February caucus, Clinton won Clark County with 55% of the votes, while Sanders took 45% of the votes. However, after the county convention, the final delegate count showed Sanders in the lead, ahead of the state convention in May.

According to the Clark County Democratic Party, the county convention's final numbers for each candidate were 2386 for Clinton and 2964 for Sanders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. Holly molly

that looks like a well attended board meeting !!!!!

Sorry, it is the photo that is striking to me