NV Democratic State Convention

[Xing]

This is another big problem with caucuses. Delegate allocation should just be proportional, and delegates shouldn't be able to change their minds. NV's delegates should just be split 19-16.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

OK, but saying on the internet this stuff is not going to do a damn thing.  It looks like whining.  I get it, some of them feel wronged in some way.  They can get over it.  Life for one thing isn't fair.  They are not going to win everything in life.  If they can't understand that, they can screw off.  If they want to throw the election to Trump, they can face the damn consequences.

The problem is that all of us will face the damn consequences if they throw the election to Trump.