Bernie Sanders wins county-level conventions in Nevada

[lovuian]

Source: Miami Herald

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article69701022.html?hl=1&noRedirect=1

Bernie Sanders scored a victory at Nevada's county-level Democratic conventions on Saturday, even though he lost to Hillary Clinton in the state's February caucuses.

Conventions held throughout Nevada yielded 2,124 Sanders-supporting delegates who will head to the state convention on May 14. That accounts for 55 percent of the total delegates.

Hillary Clinton earned 1,722 delegates, or 45 percent of the total.



Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article69701022.html?hl=1&noRedirect=1

---

Interesting

[dchill]

1. Practically voiding all the "shenanigans"...

we ALL saw at the caucuses.

[Lucky Luciano]

2. I support Bernie, but this is bullshit.

The day of the election should determine everything. Also, primaries make 10000X more sense than caucuses.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. I absolutely agree.

ALL states should hold primary elections with both early voting and absentee ballot options, IMO. Caucuses disenfranchise voters generally and not having them would avoid this NV hassle and the complex two-step process.

[Lucky Luciano]

6. Right - and all primaries should be open too. nt

[daleanime]

16. +1

[BlueMTexpat]

7. That is where we differ.

If the specific purpose of a primary is to choose who will be the party standard bearer - as it is - then I believe that closed or, at best, semi-open primaries are the way to go.

Otherwise there is too much deliberate and mischievous interference from party outsiders on both sides, exactly as we have seen too much of in the 2016 primaries.

[basselope]

10. If you believe that, then caucuses are the best answer.

Either we open the process or we don't. Closed primaries, semi-closed primaries are all nonsense... Mischievous interference from party outsiders is like "in person voter fraud".. it just doesn't happen on any level that has a real impact. And if a group WANTS to cause mischief.. they just change registrations.

So EITHER you open up the process entirely, as I would like, so we have a chance to get the best CANDIDATES

OR you limit it as much as possible making it only available to most faithful supporters and make them ALL caucuses and make sure only the parties most dedicated members choose.

[SunSeeker]

12. No. Caucuses suppress the votes of working parents - especially women. nt

[basselope]

13. Have them on weekends.

[SunSeeker]

15. Kids don't disappear on weekends. Why force people to spend hours doing a 1-second task?

[Lodestar]

20. Efficiency is NOT always the answer. By performing the ACT of voting

(whatever form that takes ie. going to a poll to vote, caucusing, etc) one embodies and commits to
this very important responsibility. Look at all the problems surrounding e-voting.

It's the difference between one telling a child a bedtime story
over skype and sitting beside them on the bed reading. You can't call some things in and
expect the quality or meaning of the experience to be the same. Effort is commitment.

That, btw, is not the same thing as being forced to do more penance than necessary due
to unscrupulous practices devised by those hoping to deter or undermine the process.

[SunSeeker]

23. Oh please. A ballot is not a child. It doesn't care how long you spend with it.

Forcing people to spend money on a baby sitter so they can get the caucus "experience" amounts to a poll tax, particularly on women.

[basselope]

24. So then lets have 100% open Primaries, as I suggested.

If "cross party shenanigans" is really the fear, then caucus is the only answer, because they take much more effort.

[SunSeeker]

26. A primary is for THE PARTY - not so other parties can come and choose our nominee.

Republicans should not be able to come into the Dem primary and vote for the weaker candidate to bolster the GOP candidate's chances.

It is the General Election that should be open to all.

[basselope]

31. This is a nonsense claim.

Like "in person voter fraud".

We hear about this every primary season, but it just doesn't happen in any numbers that influence the outcome.

If this is a REAL CONCERN, then Caucus is the only answer.

[SunSeeker]

40. No, closed primaries are the only answer.

Caucuses just amount to voter suppression, particularly of the votes of working moms and people of color.

[Lodestar]

27. So the 'convenience' of e-voting by far outweighs the negatives?

And a ballot/voting is not an extension of ourselves? We'll just have to
agree to disagree. I think anyone who has taken an action for any cause
or purpose that had meaning for them, would find their experience and
end result much enhanced by the effort they put forth to give birth to their ideas
and bring them into the world...yes like a child.

[SunSeeker]

29. Equating voting to giving birth is offensive and ridiculous, especially to women.

Voting is not and should not be like giving birth or spending time with your child. Voting should be quick, easy and free for the voter. You are tripping over self to justify voter supression. It is disgusting to see on a progressive board.

[basselope]

33. Closed primaries = voter suppression.

[SunSeeker]

39. Bullshit. Those voters are all free to vote in THEIR OWN PARTY's primary.

You are just enabling cross-party ratfucking otherwise.

[basselope]

41. Well, without voter ID laws, we could have in person voter fraud!

[SunSeeker]

42. We haven't had in person voter fraud to necessitate voter ID laws.

Or are you being sarcastic?

[basselope]

43. We haven't had crossover voting to necessitate closed primaries.

or are YOU being sarcastic?

The fairest method is 100% open primaries.

IF you are scared of crossover voting as a form of sabotage, then your ONLY answer is a caucus.

[SunSeeker]

44. Wow. You really think we need voter ID laws?!?!?!

You're really at the wrong website.

And yes, there was ratfucking in open primaries. Independents and GOP came into the Michigan primary and other open primaries/Caucuses. 4% of the voters in the Michigan Dem primary were Republicans; 27% were Independents; only 69% were actual Democrats. If it had been a closed primary where only Dem voters were allowed to vote, Hillary would have easily won Michigan, as she got 58% of those Dem voters.
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/dem
That is some serious ratfucking.

A caucus, if it is an open caucus, does nothing to prevent that ratfucking. All a caucus does is suppress the votes of working people, particularly working mothers. But seeing how you are a fan of voter ID laws, I can see why you are a fan of caucuses--they both suppress the Dem vote, particularly working moms.

[basselope]

46. If you believe that is ratfucking, then you are in the wrong country.

The plurality of people don't identify with either party anymore. Democrats are 29% of the population and republicans 26%.. independents 42%.

Many people also registered long ago and don't bother to change party affiliation, because it is meaningless. Lots of "registered democrats" vote republican and lots of "registered republicans" vote democratic. To shut them out of having their voice heard in who they believe is the best candidate.. that's voter suppression just as much as voter ID laws.

The problem in your logic is that you believe and independent voting in the democratic primary, or *shudder* a republican means they are doing something nefarious.. when in reality, they are just voting for the person they WANT to be president.

If you want it to be PURE.. then you need it to be a caucus, because that is the only way to be SURE that you are getting the people most dedicated to the party, because who else would spend 8 hours of their time to vote?

So, yes, if you believe in there is ratfucking in open primaries than you must ALSO believe in voter ID laws, because there is as much evidence of your "ratfucking" as there is of in person voter fraud.

[SunSeeker]

47. A primary election is for our party to pick a nominee, not the entire electorate.

It is clear to me you are not a Democrat. You've exposed yourself as a voter ID enthusiast and a lover of ratfucking open caucuses; it is clear you do not want what is in the best interests of the Democratic Party.

You are now just repeating yourself and this conversation has become pointless.

[basselope]

48. No, YOU are the voter ID enthusiast.

I am the one who keeps speaking out AGAINST it.

But you want to suppress the vote with loyalty oaths.

I have also NEVER claimed to be a democrat. I have been registered independent for most of my adult life. I switched registration to democrat twice. In 2003 to vote for Howard Dean (and right back to independent in 2004 when the DNC pulled their stunt with him) and didn't vote for Kerry. And now switched to democrat again in 2015 to vote for Bernie Sanders... but I believe the democratic party is a corrupt organization that needs to be cleaned out.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I will not be voting for Clinton, b/c I do not vote for republicans.

So, you can have your loyalty oaths/voter ID laws (same thing) and I will look forward to free and open elections where everyone's voice matters.

[Lodestar]

38. May your life always be 'convenient'....n/t

[daleanime]

18. Is any candidate outside of the two parties....

considered 'viable'?

[Lucky Luciano]

22. I have no loyalty to any party no matter what - even a perfect party.

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I would vote for the perfect party, but not be a member. Not good to lockout independents for not swearing a party loyalty oath.

[BlueMTexpat]

45. I don't know whether you realize it or not,

but a statement like that is the epitome of a privileged life, where you do not ever have to depend on anyone else.

The best way to accomplish things is by working together.

[Lucky Luciano]

49. I just want to vote for the best candidate independent of labels.

...and that is all a party is to me - a label. Maybe it is a symptom of my being under 45 years old - it seems older people feel some kind of loyalty to parties.

It just happens that the best candidate while I was of voting age was always a democrat. Best does not necessarily mean a great candidate - just better than the other one.

My father was a democrat, but I think he voted for one republican - she was a NYS senator that was pro-choice and I think the dem was not. He also liked Lowell Weicker in CT.

[BlueMTexpat]

50. Fair enough.

But please remember that NO candidate, however excellent that person may be, can accomplish a single thing in DC without LOTS of assistance from like-minded persons.

This is where party loyalty and support count. If one has not meaningfully cultivated and nurtured that support during one's time in DC, that is very short-sighted. Remarks such as Bernie's recent "We'll see," when asked if he would support down-ticket Dems have resonated loudly in real life. Uncommitted SDs have been paying close attention, especially when Hillary has been raising funds for down-ticket races all along while Bernie has not.

I attended a MD for Hillary event today. Never have I seen the MD contingent, from federal and state elected officials right down to local officials be so united behind a Dem candidate in the primary process and never have I heard such passionate speeches in support of Hillary from people whom I have generally considered to be soberly dispassionate. Both those at federal and state levels spoke of their own personal experiences working with Hillary and stressed not only how well prepared she was to discuss their issues, but that she actually made things happen to help with them so that she truly IS a progressive who "gets things done."

There is a LOT that needs getting done for too many people in the US and it needs to be done sooner rather than later. We need to build, not to destroy, and Hillary is a builder.

[Scootaloo]

52. Actually, party loyalty is the privilege position

"I don't care who it is so long as they wear the right letter" is the voice of someone whose life is so comfortable that they don't have to actually worry about positions or policies.

[scscholar]

37. And this by county thing...

sounds too much like the electoral college. Someone could get nearly half the votes, but get nothing in the end just like the general election.

[Cryptoad]

3. yep Bern may get a extra two votes.....

2 + 2 = 22

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1509733/full_content

[Cryptoad]

4. NOT LBN

it been reported i know of twice in last 24 hours

[lovuian]

11. It's dated by the Miami Herald for today 4/3/2016

It's a different view

[Cryptoad]

28. But the story has been posted twice before in LBN

but no worry,,,, Since it s Pro Bern it b OK

[lovuian]

34. It's about latest breaking news and giving information

from different sources from different Time zones...

[liberal N proud]

30. Still here

LBN has lost it's integrity.

Things get posted multiple times and a lot of non news threads.

[Cryptoad]

32. at least

two set of rules here abt

[lovuian]

35. Time Zones are a factor

would you deny British or Asian DUERs news because they are in different time zones

[liberal N proud]

36. ?

[fbc]

9. This is about Enthusiasm!

Clinton delegates didn't show up.

[SunSeeker]

14. This is about shenanigans.

The shenanigans of Saturday negated the votes of caucus goers, particulary people of color. Conflicting instructions made it appear that people did not need to come on Saturday if they checked in on Friday. It is not a matter of people "not bothering to show up." It is a matter of people being given the wrong instructions. And Sanders supporters packing the hall early and making it virtually impossible for anyone else to get in. Police had to be called. 


As reported by one DUer there:

There was an email that went out that said if you checked in early (Friday night)...

You wouldn't have to go into the convention as you would still be counted among the pledged delegates for your candidate. I heard a lot of Clinton's folks likely fell for that and didn't show up. The line for early check in (on Friday evening) was about a 2 + hour wait that started at 5pm PST and was supposed to go till 9pm PST. If some of those people were never told, they might have simply not come to the convention today. I got the same email, but since I want to try to go all the way to the National Convention, the Misses and I attended. Glad we did. Dirty tricks and all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110789068#post5


Sounds like the shit Ted Cruz pulled to take the majority of delegates in Louisiana even though he lost that state by a wide margin.

It is alarming to see Sanders supporters cheering what amounts to election fraud and the subversion of democracy. Hillary carried Clark County, a very diverse county, by 10 points. That Sanders would now take the majority of delegates for that county is disgusting.

[Andy823]

17. Yep

As long as Bernie comes out on top, no problem, but if this had happened the other way around, and Clinton had gotten more delegates, well all hell would have broken lose. It's a terrible double standard that I thought Bernie would never be a party of, but I guess I was wrong.

[Scootaloo]

53. Gosh. weren't you laughing at "conspiracy theories" on the day of the caucus?

[NCjack]

19. Nothing we can do but accept it as an ugly win. If HRC should get a win that way,

well, that's how politics works and we all have to accept it. Like running the grinder in a sausage factory. Did I say "ugly"? It's ugly.

[w4rma]

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

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

● 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

[lovuian]

25. Vegas news

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/apr/02/sanders-wins-most-delegates-at-clark-county-conven/

The final delegate count was 2,964 for Sanders and 2,386 for Clinton. That means the Sanders campaign will send 1,613 delegates to the state convention, while the Clinton campaign will send 1,298.

“We pretty much won Nevada,” said Sanders’ state director, Joan Kato, smiling as the results were announced.

[Sunlei]

51. I wish all primaries were open to All. Of course only allowed to vote in one primary.