2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's be clear about what happened in Nevada on Saturday
Bernie did not cheat!! Bernie didn't do anything to change the delegate count.
The fact is the Hillary delegates were too LAZY to show up.
Hillary Group is trying to say Bernie somehow stopped their delegates from showing up and cheated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110789104
The same thing happened in 2008 after Hillary won the popular vote in the January caucus the final delegate count changed from
Obama 13
Clinton 12
Then in May 2008 when Hillary delegates didn't show up to cast their vote and Obama ended up with more delegates
Obama 14
Hillary 11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Democratic_caucuses,_2008
Why is it that Hillary can't motivate her assigned delegates to show up? That's where the problem is.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)To justify this is sleazy, hypocritical and disgusting. I'm still reading posts today about people being disenfranchised and how big deal it is; and yet this is just fine? I don't think so.
Perogie
(687 posts)All the Hillary delegates needed to do was show up to be counted. NO ONE STOPPED THEM!
Why didn't the Hillary delegates show up to support her? Are they lazy? Are they regretting they voted for her?
Instead of making false accusations why don't you ask the Hillary delegates why they didn't show up.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Anybody who can justify this is a sleazy hypocrite and not worth my time sorry.
Perogie
(687 posts)You need to vent your anger at the Hillary delegates not at Bernie.
He didn't stop the Hillary delegates from going to be counted.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I just love the differences in opinion between the disenfranchisement in other states and how this is suddenly ok.
Perogie
(687 posts)you seem to have trouble understanding the difference
In Arizona people were actually denied their right to vote. That's been confirmed by state officials.
In Nevada no one was denied their right to vote. Hillary delegates were just too lazy to show up.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)That's just fine with you?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Unfortunately, for both sides have been affected, it is still the rules. Also, we need to get rid of Superdelegates, but are saddled with that albatross this time, as well.
Sanders will Try and set up Policy and the Power of the Presidency to Start that process. No unicorns or ponies. It has to begin somewhere, and it surely won't with the other candidate. No one claims it's going to be done in the first 100 days.
That's why the will of the people is so important...they will have to do the heavy lifting, with guidance from the politicians who agree with these positions.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)If either candidate does, then I am for what that candidate wants to do. I haven't heard either candidate speak to this yet but I do agree that he would probably vote to reform the system.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)and given the opportunity, would make some overtures for change. It doesn't come easily as The Establishment has bought into this system to keep them in charge. Hopefully, his background of bringing diverse opinions together will effect this travesty, as well.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)same. ITS THEIR FAULT. They didn't show.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And we have had plenty of complaints about it too(such as the unjustifiable refusal of the Iowa Dems to release raw vote totals).
It's not as though the Clintonites fought to end all caucuses prior to this year but our campaign somehow prevented that.
I'd prefer to go to presidential primaries with all mail-in voting, or, if we have to keep caucuses, to reform them along the lines I proposed in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511628657
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)isn't a suppression tactic. It's campaign disorganization maybe.
If Bernie's delegates didn't show up everyone would say it was because they were too stoned or out partying on Spring Break.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Their vote is being taken away after the fact due to a sleazy system that relies on human frailties and is much easier to corrupt afte the fact than good old fashioned one voter, one vote. You can't possibly think this system is fair or just.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)member of the Democratic Party. Primaries have other problems. No system is perfect. Primaries are easier to rig by controlling the vote counting. They are less transparent. Caucuses require more participation but everybody can see what's going on.
That being said, you make some good points and I agree with your stated goal of trying to make sure everyone has an equal vote.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I agree that both primary and the caucus systems are flawed, though at least in a primary it's easier for the average person to participate and it's one vote per voter. This whole 3-tiered delegate system is for the birds - makes me think of something a mob boss might have implemented to ensure that they could "get their people in place" after the main event was over and nobody is looking.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Obama did well in caucus states in 2008. I don't remember hearing an outcry then about how we needed to end the caucuses because they were so horrible. It's only now because we have an outsider who happens to be doing well that we are hearing these complaints.
(I'm not saying you personally are doing that. I'm just responding to the overall complaints from the online crowd.)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I like both candidates and try not to participate in the "us versus them" game as much as I can. I try as much as possible to be dispassionate as well. Of course I'm human and fail, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Also, it's nearly impossible not to be seen as biased for one side or the other depending on the argument I am making at any given time, but I can live with that too.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)delegate system is absolutely absurd, and for the reason you stated.
I don't care if it favors the candidate I support - it isn't in any way democratic. I prefer for a candidate to win fair and square.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)And award by percentages, I have no idea. It's all a bunch of crap so they can fudge the results but it backfired for the establishment here.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It is layers of unnecessary horseshit to me.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)You should really be concerned that her support is so shallow her delegates couldn't be bothered to show up and complete the process.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)This system is sleazy and ripe for corruption. I mean how many of those people could have been deliberately diverted through sleazy tactics (job schedule etc.)? It's like a mafia system.
Perogie
(687 posts)That's the rules and everyone had access to the rules for months. No surprises here.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I think all of tge sleazy things people have done to gain votes after the fact (ie Ron Paul and others) is extremely unfair and that the system needs to be reformed.
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Hillary's delegates knew what they had to do, they chose not to do it. I think your rub is that just like Hillary's delegates were informed of the process, Bernie's delegates were informed of the process and the difference is Bernie's delegates gave a shit enough about the process to show up and make sure their vote counted.
As for job schedule? It says a lot about the system that when they caucused the first time Harry had called in a favor and Casino workers were bused in from work to caucus I wonder how may of Hillary's delegates that didn't show up were Casino workers? I'm betting a lot were. You won't get any argument form me on the caucus system. I hate it. This last one was my last. It's too hard on many of us older people with mobility issues and it leaves out younger people who can't spend the time to do it for works reason or family reasons. People can get a little time off work to vote but most bosses will not give a full day off to caucus. It's a crap system.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I truly have sympathy for those who are so desperate to win that they will justify any form of sleaziness, corruption and disenfranchisement of the people's will. I find it disgusting.
For those who think I am in favor of one candidate over another, I find it even more disgusting because everything is a game to you. I am not speaking specifically to the person I am responding to here, it's just something that I have noticed.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)And I will say this, I think we Bernie supporters had moved on from Nevada, Hillary had won those delegates fair and square. It would not be an issue for discussion today had Hillary's delegates shown up. Hillary's delegates didn't bother to show up.
Sleaziness, corruption and disenfranchisement of the people's will had nothing to do with it.
TM99
(8,352 posts)are so fond of saying, it is the rules of the game.
Those Clinton delegates NEEDED to show up in order to make her win official. They did not. Life is full of schedules and adults learned to manage and balance time committments.
No rules were changed. No one was disenfranchised.
If you are going to preach that Clinton supporters are offline, not attending rallies, but are serious adults who will vote and follow through, well, you might want to actually get them to do so. Otherwise, it is just another incongruency or flat out lie.
whopis01
(3,525 posts)not to show up at the convention after being elected to do so.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)There was no disenfranchisement, they didn't fucking bother to show up and vote. When you caucus and are chosen as a delegate you are told how it works. Those delegates, Hillary's delegates chose to not be there. They. Couldn't. Be. Bothered.
Perogie
(687 posts)You falsely claim I am proud people were disenfranchised.
Are you saying that none of Bernie's delegates fall into this category?
Can you prove that Bernie doesn't have hotel/casino workers as delegates?
Why do you feel the need for personal attacks?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Anybody who applauds disenfranchisement is not a good person. The truth is a hill I would die on. Not hurting somebody's feelings is of secondary if not tertiary importance.
Perogie
(687 posts)Why do you feel the need to attack me?
The truth is that you don't have proof as to why the Hillary delegates didn't show up. You can say they couldn't because they couldn't get time off. Obviously your argument doesn't hold water because all the Bernie delegates somehow figured out how to show up and some of them are hotel/casino workers.
So keep attacking me if it makes you feel better. Just shows me how low you will go to justify the loss.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)-kiva
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1636154
Hillary Clinton won the original voting at the hotel/casino sites 70-30, per the Ralston Reports. Most of these voters are from the wait staffs of the casinos. They certainly weren't guests. These are the people least likely to be able to take more time off...
If you think making people vote twice, especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder, is democratic there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion, all the obscurantism in the world notwithstanding.
Perogie
(687 posts)Again you make false claims on what you think I think.
I live in a Caucus state. I think they are cumbersome, but I plan on showing up to every delegate count because it's something I believe in. Maybe some people couldn't take the time off, but that is on both sides. Bernie also has delegates that are hotel/casino workers but enough of them thought it more important to show up.
Don't blame me because Hillary supporters didn't show up, don't blame me for caucus rules. If you want to be mad and vent on someone then maybe you should contact the Nevada Democratic party for having a cumbersome voting system.
On a side note, you have no clue who I am or what I do. You are falsely making judgments about me because you don't like what I posted. You make a lot of personal judgement about people you have no information on except a post. You assume you have a higher moral compass without any information about me. That speaks volumes about you.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)The rules and intentional gaming of the system had a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least powerful members of society, all the obscurantism in the world, notwithstanding.
Perogie
(687 posts)If you don't like the way the caucus works then move to Nevada, become a member of the Nevada Democratic Party, volunteer for a PCP, Captain, HD Officer, SD Officer , County Party Officer and chain the system. Make a difference instead of bitching about it on a forum. I chose to get involved and make a difference.
I volunteered and became a delegate, now I have a say in how our caucus works and we are trying to get rid of it.
Bernie supporters found a way to make it to the convention by getting off work or switching shifts. They chose NOT to be disenfranchised. Sorry you can't see that and choose to disparage their commitment to what they believe in.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Voting with one's feet is a luxury this plebeian can ill afford, prolly (sic) the same reason maids, bartenders, barmaids, dishwashers, et cetera who voted for Clinton at the casino sites couldn't take the time off to vote twice.
Perogie
(687 posts)Moved to Nevada where cost of living was half that of LA, plus no state tax. Lifted me out of dire straits and put me on a better path.
Of course that was over 30 years ago.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)My girlfriend's girlfriend lived in the Las Palmas Apartments on Paradise Road. She moved after she was burglarized and no longer felt safe there. While we were staying there I went to the McDonalds, down the street, to use the free internet access. I was talking to this guy from the Philippines and told him my gf was from Manila. He was trying to sell me on the low cost of living...
The reverence I have for the wait staff at any establishment isn't feigned. They really are the Salt Of the earth.
srobert
(81 posts)No, it is not ok to disenfranchise voters. I am not applauding it. I was there, with about 5000 other delegates. I cast my delegate vote for Bernie Sanders, because that was my responsibility that I accepted at the caucus in February. I don't understand why many of Hillary's delegates disenfranchised the people whom they were supposed to represent by not showing up. Frankly, those who did show up did not seem nearly as enthusiastic about their candidate. Among the 5000 or so delegates, if I had to compare their enthusiasm on a scale of 1-10. It would be Sanders 10, Clinton 7. The speeches for Clinton's side were largely couched in implying that there should be some loyalty pledge to vote for anyone who happens to have the letter D next to their name in November. Most of the Sanders delegates that I was seated near were not receptive of that notion. After Sanders won, party officials seemed to be waiting for Sanders delegates to leave in advance of completing the verification and final count. Sanders delegates refused to leave until the final tally, because of a lack of trust in Democratic party officials. The rules of the game are unfair in many ways. Most of them are in Clinton's favor and I don't here her supporters complaining about those. Please explain to me again why does the party have super-delegates?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Look like nothing compared to this. Is this really how you think election should be run?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)We can't vote on their behalf, especially when all the rules say they have to be there to cast their own votes. That's not really a difficult concept to understand.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)This system of caucusing sucks bad and I think you and everybody else here would agree; but because you're "winning" something that doesn't even really matter in the big picture, it's suddenly okay? I am not believing this - if I didn't see it with my own eyes.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)That was their will. They were not willing to get off their asses and go vote for Hillary.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)Because if you think about it there's a lot of ways to manipulate the system after the fact.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)And why is this an acceptable form of doling out delegates?
I find it so sleazy and ripe for corruption and it's definitely disenfranchising people who showed up on Election Day for a particular candidate.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Maybe they had to work, maybe they didn't want to "waste" their day off all we know so far is they didn't return to cast their votes for Hillary. My concern is will they bother to show up and vote in the GE?
I think it's a shit form of doling out delegates and it sucks.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)And I agree with you.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)cumbersome disenfranchising system is fucking criminal. It should not be hard for citizens to vote.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I personally don't care whose Ox is being gored in this instance. I hope the caucus system is slowly but surely phased out in future election cycles.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Somehow counts as corruption. Personally I think the entire system of multi-tiered caucuses is totally wrong and undemocratic, but there's no example of actual corruption here, just laziness.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I completely agree with you.
I happen to believe that there are ways to manipulate people to not show up after the fact, I think you can imagine such things. I am not alleging this, I am saying it is a distinct possibility due to this ridiculous multi-tiered system that you agree sucks badly.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)I'd do away completely with delegates in any form given half a chance. Although I do understand that staggering the primary over months gives insurgent challengers a chance they probably would never otherwise have.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)The point of complaining this cycle is to try to get them to reform the system in future cycles.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)you've been ranting against super delegates just as much?
I agree, the rules suck, but Bernie supporters have had "the (unjust) rules are the (unjust) rules, shoved in their face at every turn.
Now suddenly Hillary supporters have a 'come to Jesus' moment? Excuse me if I don't take you seriously.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)And they are just as undemocratic.
I'm not a "pro-Hillary" poster, just a pro-Democratic poster, I am not sure where you got that notion.
katsy
(4,246 posts)gunpoint and dragged to the polls to do their job and vote?
How do you blame this on Bernie when it's Hillary's supporters that were a no-show?
Fine them! Let Hillary and the DNC put fines on them!
Because as stupid as that sounds, it's far more fitting than blaming Bernie.
Contact the DNC. It's their show. Maybe they'd be willing to get babysitters or rides for Hillary supporters. Why not just FaceTime the vote? All great ideas. But the bottom line is that the onus was on her supporters to show the fuck up. And they didn't.
Voter disenfranchisement is a real problem. But this isn't it. How do you equate voters that don't give a shit about showing up to disenfranchisement?
Dem2
(8,168 posts)So where did you get that notion?
So you're okay with a system that is extremely inconvenient, but you do offer ideas to get people there? So you know it's a problem, you've just admitted that it's a problem.
So I am going to agree with you - this system sucks. It needs to be reformed its primitive it doesn't work in today's age. Period.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)run forever, its all on HRC delegates. If you can't or won't go, then don't be a delegate. You volunteer to be a delegate. When they asked for delegate volunteers in Alaska I wanted to go so badly but I couldn't guarantee it so I didn't VOLUNTEER.
katsy
(4,246 posts)But caucuses still suck
beedle
(1,235 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)The elephant in the room is that a lot of people had votes that did not get counted. Or to state it in a way that even BSers could understand: the will of the people was not honored. Thanks Dem2.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)This is a good debate and it needs to be had and I don't care which side feels what way, the system itself is what sucks.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)I would make it to Anchorage. THEY did it to THEMSELVES.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)It's exactly the hypocrisy that should bother everybody who argues for one side or the other here.
Neither case is OK. Both situations suck and need to be reformed, sooner than later.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Henhouse
(646 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)It just doesn't seem fair, does it?
Perogie
(687 posts)If the Hillary delegates had shown up like they promised then Hillary would have won.
Bernie had nothing to do with that. Ask the Hillary delegates why they didn't show up.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)then you may be right.
Sad that Hillary couldn't do the same. Guess she lacks enthusiasm.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Carry on.....
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)finish the process. Hypocrisy? How? Delegates volunteered. They went. You assume that somehow HRC delegates couldn't get the day off or something. What makes you think that the BS delegates had an easier time coming? THey come from the same community and work groups. HRC just fucked up. Don't blame anyone but her state coordinator.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Are 1 - 2 delegates really worth the tarnish this puts on his campaign?
Not to mention that this pretty much puts to bed his complaints about the superdelegates.
Matt_R
(456 posts)And get the Nevada DNC to setup a primary system and get rid of the caucus system you are so against.
Henhouse
(646 posts)Matt_R
(456 posts)I am asking you to personally help out the Democratic Party and start advocating for the primary system in all states to stop the disenfranchisement that is the caucus system.
As a Hillary supporter, you should have no problem with having a fair election for all parties involved, the candidates and voters.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)delegates should not have shown up to caucus because Secretary Clinton's delegates didn't show up? Do you have some other way to avoid this hypocrisy? In case it isn't clear I don't see any hypocrisy .
whopis01
(3,525 posts)Having to have a vote, then have delegates show up to vote again is a ridiculous system. I agree with that. But showing up to vote isn't taking advantage of the system. It is participating in the system.
In my opinion compels processes like these and the super delegate system (which is completely undemocratic) should be done away with.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)have his people show up.
djean111
(14,255 posts)The hypocrisy is both expected and sadly hilarious.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Unless you think he somehow stopped Hillary delegates from showing up.
Blaming it on Bernie is cheap.
If your point is caucuses are wierd and should probably be done away with.. I am with you. This shouldnt have happened this way.
And the whole primary system is pretty messed up. No good reason at all for the south to have such an oversized effect on the democratic nomination via going so early in the process, or for California, a state that is pretty key to democratic presidential wins, to go so late, all the time.
But to blame it on Bernie.. that takes a special kind of person.
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Bernie cheated because Reasons...
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)riversedge
(70,322 posts)Yes, I agree--lets get this information OUT!
Kaivan Shroff
?@KaivanShroff
If you're asking why Hillary's Nevada delegates didn't show up, it is because they were told they did not need to.
PS--I only recently discovered Kaivan on twitter:
Kaivan Shroff
@KaivanShroff follows you
Jack of all trades, master of some. MBA student @YaleSOM, @BrownUniversity Class of 2015. Manager of #Millennials4Hillary Account: @StillWithHer
[img][/img]
Brian Fallon ?@brianefallon 12h12 hours ago
Among grave issues affecting County convention results in NV: notice went out to delegates wrongly saying they didn't need to show up today
Perogie
(687 posts)I guess they're just smart enough to know they actually have to show up to be counted.
Nice try though.
riversedge
(70,322 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)...because it was their memo, and all the delegates received it, not just Hillary's.
riversedge
(70,322 posts)Memo just before the Iowas caucus saying Carson had dropped out. I really had hopes that the Democrats were better than them. Seems in this case-not so.
Matt_R
(456 posts)Next time they will make sure it only goes out to Bernie supporters.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I googled it and no mention of it in the NYT or WaPo.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Nobody held them hostage at home yesterday.
Doesn't matter, we are just "serial cheaters"
How quickly, IA, MA, NV, AZ and others get forgotten.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)per Harry Reid so they could go vote in February either.
Perogie
(687 posts)Maybe Reid forgot to make a phone call about the April delegate caucus.
http://observer.com/2016/02/harry-reid-rushed-home-to-nevada-to-help-rig-caucus-results-for-clinton/
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)They think she's as phony as the rest of us do?
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)KPN
(15,662 posts)Oh that's easy. She dropped them from her payroll after the original caucus. Caucus won, job done, move the campaign and the money to the next State!
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)when CoffeeCat was updating us about the delegate votes shifting to Clinton? i was GLUED to DU that day and want to say THANK YOU COFFEECAT, again. It has already happened once this year and with about the same reaction for both sides... The good news is Iowa was already purple but now NEVADA turns purple too!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Vinca
(50,313 posts)to get their casino workers out to the caucuses. Obviously we don't know if Hillary's name was mentioned, but if you are a person told by your boss to go vote, chances are you have also been told how the boss wants you to vote. It's not a private vote and much of it is filmed by news outlets so you'd better be standing with the right group if your job is on the line. The whole thing had a stench about it.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)They came and voted because they got let off work, not because they were highly motivated. The fact that they didn't bother to come back as committed speaks volumes. It means that among both committed and their alternates there were not enough delegates to win against the Bernie delegates who cared enough about their candidate to show up.
Maybe this accounts for the miserable showing by HRC delegates?
Perogie
(687 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and that is what would happen in November if we are cursed with her Nom. She won't motivate very many people then either. People just are not motivated by current status quo.
SHe would loose.
riversedge
(70,322 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Those delegates let down Hillary voters who were counting on them to make their voice heard at the convention.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)save the morality crap. for godsake.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)kiva
(4,373 posts)No snark, just facts, and I was still banned. Some people just don't want to hear the truth, I guess.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)You seriously expect me to believe Bernie people contacted them out of the blue and told them the wrong day or whatever and they didn't double check? Who are these delegates? I'm going to tell them to wire me money to get their grandson out of Nigerian prison.
SCantiGOP
(13,874 posts)Hillary gets more delegates after vote total is announced: HYSTERIA! massive vote fraud and conspiracy!
Bernie gets more: this is normal, Hillary just got outplayed.
BTW, my take is #2 is probably closer to the truth, but God, the Sanders crowd finds a huge conspiracy every time things don't go just their way.
Math-based fact, as in this is reality: as of today 2 1/2 million more people have voted for Clinton. That is a fact.
Perogie
(687 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Special deal for casino workers arranged by Harry Reid. Apparently they didn't feel like doing the same thing for free.