Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WA Caucus (Original Post) lmbradford Apr 2016 OP
I am curious too. redwitch Apr 2016 #1
Follow on #WACAUCUS , I've been throwing my support Joob Apr 2016 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author Chezboo Apr 2016 #3
i just came from there mooseprime Apr 2016 #4
Nice, thank you for Staying Strong and fighting for Bernie and us. Joob Apr 2016 #5
the passion was something i've never seen before mooseprime Apr 2016 #6
Mine was too. JimDandy Apr 2016 #7

Response to lmbradford (Original post)

mooseprime

(474 posts)
4. i just came from there
Sun Apr 17, 2016, 10:05 PM
Apr 2016

the most disorganized thing i've ever witnessed. they're not remotely near done. turnout for sanders was massive, not many clinton people. in my district, #1, not enough clinton people came and they ended up with no delegates at all, whereas we got 15 for sanders.

mooseprime

(474 posts)
6. the passion was something i've never seen before
Sun Apr 17, 2016, 10:16 PM
Apr 2016

in our politics, and there were droves of young people, you couldn't ask for better. maybe, some skullduggery, the party didn't have enough people to sign everyone in, i talked to someone from the sanders campaign who said the campaign had offered to help out but were told no. after 4-1/2 hours they still didn't have a number from the credentials committee, which is the first step in the whole process. but my sense was the turnout was so huge that it wouldn't matter if party was up to no good. 50 or 60 people spoke for my distrtict alone (for the 15 slots plus 7 alternates), and every one of them did us proud. the thing was so poorly organized, if there were active efforts to sabotage the process, there would have been no way to tell!

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
7. Mine was too.
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:40 AM
Apr 2016

The official rules from the State Party stated that the LD's could not change the rules. My caucus, the 6th LD, changed some of the more important ones. It was a pretty messed up caucus that ran long, although not as long as CoffeeCat's one in Iowa.

The rules stated the delegates and alternates were to sign in...didn't happen. The lists at the check in table didn't even have a place for delegate signatures. The credentialers simply put a check mark by their name to note they were present. And there was no check in time column on the list, which normally is used to seat alternates in order, by check-in times, starting with the ones who checked in first.

Delegates and Alternates were supposed to present their credential paper that they received at the March 26th caucus at check in...didn't always happen. While standing in line, I observed one person saying they hadn't received a credential and another said they had forgotten it. Both were allowed in without their paper. The credential checker stated that since their name (that the person verbally provided) was on the list they were good to go.

Then we were waiting on the initial credential report as the numbers weren't adding up in what was called a preliminary initial count. A motion from the floor to do a head poll was ruled out of order since there was no report ready. We had to just sit there while they ostensibly searched for what was later said to be a math error. While that was going on, there were murmurings behind where I was sitting that delegates were being allowed in past the cut off time (which by then was 20 minutes earlier.)

By the way, Roberts Rules of Order weren't followed in the least by the chair. I never heard one motion to accept any report, count, etc, or to even open the caucus.

The preliminary count was 291 delegates present for Sanders, 91 for Clinton and 2 uncommitted. After we were told an error had been found, the official initial count was stated as 311 delegates for Sanders, 99(?) for Clinton and 2 uncommitted. The chair stated that 109 delegates had not shown up and that 109 alternates from the pool of about 400 who showed up would be seated.

A delgate asked the chair to state how many of the 109 missing delegates belonged to each candidate. The chair refused to provide those numbers saying he didn't want to "rat out" which campaign was short the most delegates. Those numbers are crucial and are supposed to be released to the body.

Here's where it became eye-roll time. The rules stated that alternates were to be seated in order by when they were elected ('elected' to my understanding means the time in which they were checked in to the caucus.) Instead, the chair decided to seat alternates on a one-to-one match by precinct, starting with the smallest numbered precinct first. That kind of seating guarantees that there could be no change in the number of delegates awarded to both candidates at the March 26th Caucus!

So, for example, the chair started with precinct 6000. Lets say that on the 26th, there were 8 delegates and 4 alternates awarded for Sanders, and 4 delegate and 2 alternate for Clinton un precinct 6000. Let's then say that only 2 Clinton delegates and 1 alternate showed up today. The chair then said that, instead of seating one of the Sanders' alternates from that precinct, or seating an alternate from the alternate 'pool' starting in order by check in time, no matter who the alternate was for, the chair stated that only a Clinton specific alternate from the pool would be picked.

This one-to-one match has the effect of making today's caucus an unnecessary exercise in futility and a waste of time, because it doesn't reward the enthusiasm of supporters of the candidate with the most attendees, a reason often cited by the party for having caucuses in the first place.

The chair even stated to all of us present that this way of seating delegates "could put our delegates in jeopardy of not being accepted by the State party, so we have to do this carefully."

We simply need to get rid of the caucus process nationwide.


Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WA Caucus