NV Democratic State Convention

[Ebsy]

When is realignment over Joe?

[This account no longer in use.]

To anyone talking about muh democracy:



53% Clinton
47% Sanders

Shush! You'll ruin their narrative!

[Joe Republic]

When is realignment over Joe?

"Shortly."  We're all just sitting around waiting.

There's still 2 uncommitted delegates!  Attention seekers.

[IceSpear]

To anyone talking about muh democracy:



53% Clinton
47% Sanders

And even that was a terrible example of democracy, due to no secret ballot.

With each successive stage of the caucus process, it gets less and less democratic. These awful things seriously need to be abolished. It's impossible to take them seriously now that we're all seeing the underbelly up close and personal.

[Panda Express]

Clinton hacks are known to openly lie to make Bernie people look bad.

Your side doesn't need any help in making yourselves look bad.

[Xing]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

[Eraserhead]

Maybe they'll finally smarten up and get rid of this ridiculous process after this.

[dax00]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

[Joe Republic]

What you think is a righteous outcome doesn't justify a blatant affront to democracy. They voted to change the rules 30 minutes before scheduled, before registration was complete, and had stuff "carry" without 2/3 of the voice vote.

Huh?  The motion to pass the convention rules wasn't given a specific scheduled time.  I have the agenda on my lap right now; the vote was planned to take place between 10-12, and was done about 10.30.  Are you privy to more information than the rest of us delegates actually sitting here in the convention?

And I already addressed your misunderstanding of the 2/3 voice vote.

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

Except it should be binding. Your side stole the delegates yourself. Go whine about fluoridated water or something.

[Maxwell]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

I understand being upset about it, but if Sanders had won the popular vote than I'd be resigned to supporting him.

[JerryArkansas]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

[Lyin' Steve]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

I would feel the same way I felt about Kasich.  I was frustrated early on when the media wasn't treating him fairly, and especially after he did well in New Hampshire, but it became clear pretty soon that he just wasn't going to win and that it was his own fault, and we were stuck with Trump/Cruz.  I accepted that instead of pretending that he would have won if only independents were allowed to vote in Idaho or some other such process triviality.

[dax00]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

[Minnesota Mike]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

I would have more sympathy for Bernie supporters concerns about Super Delegates but for the fact that current plan to get Bernie nominated is to have the Super Delegates overturn the preference of pledged delegates. You can't have it both ways.

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

Yes, but the system is inherently undemocratic. The Sandernistas tried to steal a delegate or two, and ended up paying the price. Deal with it.

[JerryArkansas]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

He lost the popular vote, and should not get a majority of the delegates.  That seems simple to me.

And from my reading of the rules, this is not true.

[Lyin' Steve]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

[dax00]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

For the record, I did not complain about those conventions. I just posted pictures of some results.

[IceSpear]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

It's actually pretty easy to put the shoe on the other foot. Hillary won NV in 2008, but Obama got more delegates. Her voters in FL were disenfranchised by the DNC, and the entire state of MI was disenfranchised by the DNC. The media was in the tank for Obama from day 1. She arguably won the popular vote, and considering Democrats were so big on the popular vote deciding elections post 2000, you'd think they would've given it to her rather than who got the most delegates based off byzantine and archaic caucus procedures. But that isn't what happened. Unlike in 2016, the overall outcome actually could've been changed by many of those things, but Hillary supporters eventually got over it in the end and accepted the result. No process is going to be completely fair or perfect, but hopefully we can continue moving further in that direction after learning lessons from this year.

[Xing]

I'm not saying that Bernie is actually or should actually be winning. I'm saying that many Sanders supporters feel like the system is stacked against them, and changes in the delegate count that favor Clinton (even if these changes are just reverting the delegate count to what it originally was) are seen as more evidence that Clinton is "stealing" the nomination. Is it rational? No. Is it important to understand how they feel? I'd say yes. These voters are the kind Hillary has to win over in the GE. I've accepted that Hillary has won the nomination, so I fail to see how this makes me a whining kid.

[This account no longer in use.]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

I don't think Dax has any concrete ideology. He seems to just be a ridiculous Ron Paul '12/Bernie Sanders '16 conspiracy theorist type.

[IceSpear]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10. That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Even though the NV Delegate Selection Plan clearly stated that caucus was non-binding in bold font, it is sufficiently ambiguous for me to let that go.

However, Bernie won April. Today, Hillary supporters tried to wrest back in an underhanded fashion the delegates they thought they had rightfully earned.

The popular vote of the state was for Hillary Clinton.  So it is ok for them to overturn the will of the people of Nevada.  How is god's green earth is that fair, or democratic.  Your the one who is trying to steal this nomination, not Hillary and her camp.

This straw man is getting old. The caucus system has multiple tiers, which vote independently of each other.

lol, this from a Trump supporter?  I"m sure you had the same attitude three weeks ago when Cruz was stealing all his delegates at these little conventions.

On that note, as bad as caucuses are, at least Democrats don't have to deal with states outright suspending democracy and having party hacks assign the delegates. Yuck. The media's lack of outrage for this and instead cheerleading Cruz's campaign for being so "organized and disciplined!" and "knowing how to play the shadow game!" was disgusting.

[Panda Express]

Hillary won in February 13 delegates to 10.

However, Bernie won April.

lol. Do you really not see how ridiculous this is?

[Xing]

I'm not going to try to defend what some of the Bernie folks are doing (from Joe Republic's account), but I do understand why they're raising a fuss about potential losing a delegate or two. Imagine if it was Sanders who had a  400 delegate lead before a single vote was cast, thanks to nearly universal backing form super delegates. Then, imagine Clinton winning New Hampshire by 22%, only to break even in the total delegate count, since Sanders won all six super delegates. Imagine if the chair of the DNC wasn't subtle at all about her support of Sanders, and wanted to limit the number of debates, preventing Clinton from getting much of a chance to make her case. Then, imagine landslide victories by Clinton in many caucus states were mostly ignored by the media, since Sanders "had it in the bag." Imagine a state that only allowed folks who registered with the Democratic Party six months before the actual contest (which was a very high-stakes contest) to vote, which prevented many potential Clinton supporters from participating, even if they were willing to give their allegiance to the Democratic Party...

Perhaps it's impossible to imagine the tables being turned. It's easy for a Clinton supporter to say that if things had happened in the opposite way, they'd be accepting that Sanders had won, and wouldn't feel as if the system was stacked in Sanders' favor, and wouldn't be paranoid about losing possible delegates. I would bet, though, that many Clinton supporters, some of whom mock the Sanders supporters who act like this (and again, I don't condone their behavior, I'm simply trying to explain that they feel as if the system is "rigged" against Bernie. Whether or not it actually is doesn't have much impact on how they feel) would be acting the same way if things were reversed.

It's actually pretty easy to put the shoe on the other foot. Hillary won NV in 2008, but Obama got more delegates. Her voters in FL were disenfranchised by the DNC, and the entire state of MI was disenfranchised by the DNC. The media was in the tank for Obama from day 1. She arguably won the popular vote, and considering Democrats were so big on the popular vote deciding elections post 2000, you'd think they would've given it to her rather than who got the most delegates based off byzantine and archaic caucus procedures. But that isn't what happened. Unlike in 2016, the overall outcome actually could've been changed by many of those things, but Hillary supporters eventually got over it in the end and accepted the result. No process is going to be completely fair or perfect, but hopefully we can continue moving further in that direction after learning lessons from this year.

Many Clinton supporters did accept Obama as the nominee, but there were certainly some who were not so quick to accept him (PUMA). Most Clinton supporters who were on the fence about him did get over it, and in the end, most Sanders supporters (unfortunately, not all of them) probably will come to Clinton. That doesn't mean that there aren't any takeaway points from this primary, though.