NV Democratic State Convention

[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.

[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.

[JerryArkansas]

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.

[JerryArkansas]

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.

Yeah, but it wouldn't be anyone's fault but them.  If they want to throw this away, I know many of us will make them the guilt for doing that.