How Clinton Won the Nevada State Convention

[Time for change]

We have heard s reports from Clinton supporters that Sanders delegates to the Nevada State Convention last night were poor losers and acted outrageously, etc. etc. etc. Well, from everything I have read and heard about how the convention was run, there were very good reasons for their “rude” behavior.


The state convention

I’ve heard bits and pieces from various sources and cannot find a single coherent source that explains everything. Here is a video that gives you some idea of the chaos involved, but surely doesn’t put it together into a coherent story. These are what I consider to be the essential issues:

There were clearly more Sanders delegates at the convention than Clinton delegates. The Clinton delegates proposed a set of rule changes for the convention that, according to the Sanders delegates would make it easy for them (the Clinton campaign) to pick up some extra delegates for the national convention. A “voice vote” was taken, and it was ruled that the rule changes would go into effect. The Sanders delegates vociferously objected to the ruling, clearly unconvinced that the “voice vote” was legitimate. But to no avail. The rule changes went into effect.

There were 64 Sanders delegates who were decertified from the convention. The news article I read on the subject said simply that the decertified Sanders delegates felt that they were wrongly decertified. The main reason for the decertification was that they were said not to be registered as Democrats. That came as a complete surprise to the decertified delegates. Related to that, I read a DU post last night from an Iowa Democratic delegate (and I hope he or she responds to this OP) saying that he also was decertified from the Iowa caucuses, along with several other Sanders delegates, because, he was told, he (and many of the other decertified delegates) were registered as Republicans or otherwise not registered as Democrats.

I have also seen reports of Sanders delegates being locked out of rooms when crucial votes came up at the Nevada State Convention.

So it appears to me, on the basis of the strong armed tactics used by the Clinton campaign to win the Nevada caucuses, that some “rude” behavior by the Sanders delegates was not only warranted but was obligatory on their part as a protest in an attempt to represent the interests of those who elected them.


A word about the County Conventions where Sanders took a temporary lead in delegates

A discussion of this issue would not be complete without including the county conventions where Sanders took a temporary lead in delegates. There are Clinton supporters who have called this unethical, and I’ll bet that they will also say that because of that, whatever methods they used at the state convention to win would be justified in order to rectify the situation. So let’s take a closer look at this:

The reason given for Sanders taking a lead at the county conventions, in particular Clark County, was that hundreds of Clinton delegates either didn’t show up or flipped their vote to Sanders. If that was the end of the explanation, perhaps it would still be a good enough explanation, because if Clinton delegates didn’t want to take the time to attend the convention or changed their mind about who to vote for, then what does the Clinton campaign have to complain about?

But I doubt very much that that is all there is to the story, though I have seen no deeper explanation in writing. It strikes me as somewhat odd that hundreds of Clinton delegates would not show up at the county conventions, and unbelievably odd that so many would switch their votes to Sanders. After all, they were elected to represent Clinton. How could they possibly excuse such behavior?

The only plausible explanation that I can think of is that either prior to the convention or at the convention revelations were made about how Clinton “won” the original voting in the Nevada caucus, and that those revelations were so striking that many Clinton delegates were sickened by them to the point where their consciences would not allow them to vote for Clinton at the county conventions. What other reasonable explanation is there?

What revelations could there have been? Here’s one:

She needed pure corruption, intimidation and manipulation to squeak out an unimpressive win in Nevada…. That got Hillary a few hundred extra votes and put her over the top in Nevada…. she needed union and casino bosses {who supported one candidate} to basically order their union employees to take half their day off, and pay them to vote.

What this all means

The purging of Sanders delegates at the Nevada state convention is reminiscent of similar and massive purging of would-be voters in Arizona, New York, and many other states in the Democratic primaries this year. The main difference, I think, is that when you mess around with this kind of thing at a caucus you’re dealing with people who are very highly motivated to see democracy run properly and who are likely to be determined to spread the word around of the methods used to subvert democracy.

There is a revolution brewing in this country, even prior to Bernie Sanders’ announcement of his intention to run for President. That revolution is reflected by favorability ratings for the U.S. Congress running at record low levels, usually between 10 and 20% and sometimes dipping into single digits, and 45% of voters who do not consider themselves to be either Democrats or Republicans (42% independents and 3% other).

The many and massive “irregularities” occurring in the Democratic primaries this year are not reflecting favorably on the Democratic Party, and there has been a lot of talk going on about a mass exodus from the Democratic Party following the Democratic convention. The happenings at the Nevada State Convention have just added a good deal of fuel to the fire.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Jester Messiah]

26. Mostly the latter. n/t

[JaneyVee]

4. MOAR TINFOIL ASAP!

[7wo7rees]

9. SurelyJaneyV, you can do better than just call for more

"Tinfoil" for all of "conspiracy nuts".

[JaneyVee]

10. Who won Nevada?

Now ask yourself: "why are we still trying to subvert the will of the people months later?"

[7wo7rees]

18. Who won Nevada is the question, dear.

Who really is doing the subversion?

[insta8er]

71. tinfoil this time, with video and peoples actual account of what happened.

But I guess anything you have to tell yourself that your candidate and her followers can't do anything wrong right?

[kstewart33]

5. The convention ended as was expected back in February.

Hillary won the state. She would get the most delegates.

And so it was.

Hard to see what is so terrible about that.

[Time for change]

7. So you're not concerned at all about HOW she "won" it?

[HerbChestnut]

12. Not when the results comply with their agenda

So long as the results "make sense", it doesn't matter how they came to be.

[kstewart33]

29. Well, no. She 'won' the delegates that were hers to begin with.

So there's no winning or losing here. She won the Nevada caucus by 5 points. She got the number of delegates commensurate with her winning margin in February.

I'm no expert here, but it seems that Bernie's supporters tried to get delegates that weren't theirs to get.

[beedle]

48. Yea, well you see

the 'rules' are the 'rules' only when they benefit Clinton.

Rules that say you must be a registered Democrat 8 (6?) months ahead of the primaries in NY, those are rules that can never be changed, even when within the last month a bunch of previously registered Democrats (who happen to be likely Sanders voters) are flipped away from their Democratic registration, or taken off the roles entirely ... nope, "rules are rules" and that's just too bad, better luck next primary season .. can't go changing 'sacred rules' at the last minute just because it would be more democratic.

But, it's perfect okay to change the rules at the last second if doing so benefits Hillary ... so that 3 phase NV caucus process, was perfectly fine in phase I when it went Hillary's way .. then in Phase II, when it went Bernie's way, well that was somehow unjust, so come Phase III it is totally acceptable to change those not-so-sacred-anymore rules to ignore Phase II results.

I think it's called "Establishment Democracy"?

[Time for change]

51. And there are rules for changing the rules

Which those in charge of the Convention ignored. They took a "voice vote" on the rule change, and then they ruled that the voice vote enabled the rule change, even though it was not at all obvious who won the voice vote. The rules say that whenever there is objection to the ruling on a voice vote (and there was plenty of objection to it), then a real vote must be taken. But that was just ignored.

There is a lawsuit now pending, and I'm pretty sure it involves events where the rules were not followed.

And we're supposed to fall in line behind a candidate who runs a campaign like that?

[beedle]

55. In old France ...

... I think it was, they used to say something like "rules are for the rules, not the rulers" .... and then when the people had to 'eat cake' they went on a sugar high and trashed the joint ... I think that's how the story went

I doubt that the lawsuit will do any good, Hillary elites are correct it is a 'private club', and they can be as bassacwardly undemocratic an dishonest as they want .... I think the only solution is to either take them over (ie. convincing the much larger independent and progressive wing of the DemParty to join forces, and join the party for the sole purpose of overthrowing the establishment leadership once and for all) or leave them for a 3rd party and let them wallow in the political shit-pile like the tea party.

[Time for change]

66. I'm for the 2nd option

They've gone way too far to be redeemable IMO.

If they get to be considered a private club that can do whatever they want, no matter how unethical, then why should they play such a major role in determining our elected officials, who are supposed to represent the citizens of our country? In what way can that be called democracy?

[beedle]

67. I believe the 2nd option would be a better long term solution. nt

[kiva]

58. You do not understand how the Nevada caucus system works.

To put it simply, ask yourself what is the point of having a local AND a county AND a state convention, with delegates, if only the first caucus counts? There is no reason, so clearly a candidate doesn't win a final number of candidates at the first caucus, they need to continue to keep those candidates at the next two levels of caucuses.

You can argue if it's an efficient or a fair system - personally I'm hoping to change to a primary by 2020 - but it is clearly not set up the way you seem to think it is organized.

[Ferd Berfel]

46. NO they don't care.

It's the rape and destruction of democracy, and they don't care. The ends justify the means for them. Just like republicans.

[Time for change]

49. Yes

And they don't even understand why some of us won't vote for Hillary

[Ferd Berfel]

52. Willful ignorance

it runs rampant in the conservative authoritarian brain. These people are not Democrats, they are not liberal or progressive. THey are disenfranchised republicans who have come across and taken over the Party.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

[hellofromreddit]

19. I'm fine with that

Nevada's caucus system is clearly overly complex and a back-and-forth like this serves no purpose. However, the chair obviously abused her power and behavior like that delegitimizes the victor. If the DNC has any sense they'll toss out the Nevada delegates and tell the state to get its shit together.

[kstewart33]

33. The DNC isn't going to deny the caucus winner her delegates.

If they did that to Bernie, then all heck would break loose. And it should.

[bvf]

6. K&R!

But "won"?

[Time for change]

8. That's the official word

But I'm hoping that this and many many other election "irregularities" will take up a great deal of time at the National Convention -- BEFORE a nominee is chosen.

[bvf]

13. For sure.

This shit needs to gain as much attention as possible.

Not a fucking peep about this on radio today.

[kstewart33]

31. Maybe it's because the 'shit' isn't worth reporting.

I honestly don't know what all the upset is about.

Hillary received what, back in February, it was expected she'd receive.

There was a lot of yelling and screaming and all, but the end result seems like the most democratic one. The person with the most caucus votes got the most delegates.

[bvf]

45. You're right. Not news. At all.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I'll bet your opinion would change in a blink.

Right. Not news.

[kstewart33]

62. Not so.

If Bernie won Nevada by 5 points, he SHOULD get delegates commensurate with his winning margin.

I don't like the entire stealing delegates gambit, regardless of who does it. It's dirty play and nonsense. If Hillary has tried it, then it's a bad move. Same with Bernie.

It's something that Ted Cruz became an expert about.

[eridani]

59. If only Feburary counts, then why even have caucuses at other levels? n/t

[kstewart33]

63. eridani, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[eridani]

90. February was just the first stiep in the caucus process. n/t

[politicaljunkie41910]

38. It already did. Unfortunately Bernie supporters live in their own reality.

"Here’s what happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention
By Philip Bump May 15 at 1:43 PM

Thousands gather at the Paris casino in Las Vegas for the Nevada State Democratic Convention on Saturday. (Michelle Rindels/AP)

Saturday's raucous state Democratic convention in Nevada encapsulated a lot of the themes of the party's 2016 election in a relatively short period: complex delegate math, instructable processes, allegations of deceit, fury — and a result that doesn't do much of anything to shift the race's eventual outcome.

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

The people who attend the Democratic convention this weekend were chosen during voting in early April. At that point, Sanders out-organized Clinton, getting 2,124 people elected to the state convention (according to the tabulation at the always-essential delegate-tracking site the Green Papers) to Clinton's 1,722. That suggested that voting at the state convention would flip: Sanders would win those 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 contests, giving him a 7-to-5 victory at the convention and making the state total 18-to-17 for Clinton instead of 20-to-15.

But that's not what happened, as best as we can piece together.

On Friday, Sanders's campaign released a statement (apparently after a conversation with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid) thanking his supporters in the state and saying that working together "respectfully and constructively on Saturday at the Nevada Democratic convention" would help the party beat Donald Trump in November. On Saturday morning, though, there was tumult.

Prior to the state convention, some Sanders supporters began an effort to shift the convention rules in a way that they viewed as more favorable to their candidate. One of those changes, the Las Vegas Sun reported, was a process for verifying voice votes; another took issue with the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, heading up the convention. Supporters at the event circulated petitions to the same end. The scene was set.

The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount — but this was simply a preliminary figure. As in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the final total delegates went through a process of realignment as the day progressed.

That was when the vote to approve the rules as written — Roberta's Rules versus Robert's Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them — was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed — which is when the room, in Ralston's phrasing, "erupts." Ensuing speakers, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (a Clinton supporter), were interrupted by a vocal group of Sanders supporters at the front of the room. ..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/15/heres-what-happened-at-saturdays-dramatic-nevada-democratic-convention/

[Ferd Berfel]

47. Bet you even Hartmann either ignores or tires to justify this

with crap like "well politics is dirty, it just politics but won't you be happy when she does this same shit to the republicans..... and blah and blah and blah"



the media will ignore this, the DNC will ignore this.

so what's next? what comes out of the utter chaos that will be the GE? It's not democracy

[Blue Meany]

57. I think that disputes like this get settled in the

DNC rules committee, which has also been stacked with Hillary supporters. If they are smart, they will reverse this decision, since many rules were broken to attain this outcome. If they don't we will know that their idea of party unity is to be achieved by alienating progressives rather than through fairness or consensus.

For the record, I don't like caucuses and Nevada's is not very democratic to begin with. But fairness is also important, and changing the rules going through the required processes for doing so; calling a voice vote on those rules before most the delegates have been seated; ajudicating the vote in the affirmative when it appears to have been the opposite; refusing to do an actual count of the votes; refusing to do a recount of delegates...all of these things do not suggest a leadership committed to fairness but to a specific outcome.

[Chezboo]

11. Like 'awesome' and 'epic'

if this is 'winning', it doesn't mean much any more. The corker is even with Sanders blowouts she cheats... a delegate here, delegate there... maybe no one will notice.

[Time for change]

14. I believe (and hope) that this one will be noticed big time

and that there is a big price to pay for this and all the other election "irregularities" that have occurred this primary season -- all of which favor Hillery.

They may have over-reached themselves on this one.

[Live and Learn]

15. The cheating is obvious and will not be ignored.

It is preposterous to expect us to believe that people that went through the entire process of becoming a delegate were not registered Democrats. It is obvious someone changed their registrations and it wasn't them.

[AzDar]

16. Lie, Cheat And Steal: Clinton Family Values.

NO THANKS.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Is there any leaders in this group? Results does not happen when there is yelling, no one responds

To this type of behavior.

[Time for change]

21. When there is flagrant cheating, and the cheaters keep on cheating and cheating

yelling should be expected.

But if you think that cheating is not as bad as yelling, we'll just have to disagree on that.

[Thinkingabout]

22. Did the yelling change the results? It appears everything is not abkve board with the attempt to

Replace Hillary's delegates with Sanders delegates, flagrant cheating.

[Time for change]

23. The yelling will bring national attention to the flagrant cheating that occurred at the convention

That's a good thing. This needs as much attention as possible. And yes, it could end up changing the results.

It's called protesting. It's an American tradition, and without it we might have no democracy at all -- which is the way we are now heading if the cheaters aren't brought to account for their actions.

[Thinkingabout]

25. So far the yelling has brought attention to the yelling.

Why accuse anyone of cheating when it appears there was an attempt of cheating Hillary of her delegates?

[notadmblnd]

35. Could you post that video please?

[Time for change]

41. It's in the OP

[kstewart33]

36. What was the objective of Bernie supporters at the convention?

To steal delegates from Clinton? She won the caucus by 5 points.

Did you want the BS to get delegates that Bernie did not win at the ballot box?

[Time for change]

42. She won the caucus because casino bosses ordered their employees to vote for Clinton, and paid them

to do so. Did you read the OP?

[kstewart33]

43. There is no evidence that casino bosses ordered employees to vote for Clinton.

Yes, Reid lobbied casino owners and management to give casino employees time off to vote, but there are no quotes from anyone who said they were ordered to vote for Clinton.

Please provide a reputable news source that supports your contention as one is not in the OP.

Charges against Clinton on GD-P are too numerous to count and have reached the point of ridiculousness. Almost all have no objective support and come from sources that contain rumors and innuendo but no verifiable facts. Including payoffs to employees to vote for Clinton.

Conspiracies are everywhere so say so many BS supporters. To the point that it has become ridiculous.

I and I'm sure other Hillary supporters would listen, if these accusations were backed by facts - not rumor, opinion, exaggeration as in this case, and innuendo.

Why do you think the supers are so reluctant to back Sanders? And why increasingly BS supporters are the targets of jokes and ridicule? Because they insist that everywhere and in every way Clinton conspires to destroy democracy and our country.

Please, just stop. This is not helping Bernie's movement. The movement, which I strongly support, is becoming one big joke.

And that's the tragedy of all this.

[Time for change]

44. It is in the OP

Where the blockquote is.

Also, I've heard several reports to substantiate it.

And tell me why you think that so many Hillary delegates switched to Bernie at the Clark County Convention or just didn't show up? Don't you think that's just a bit odd?

[TwilightZone]

56. "I've heard"

[kstewart33]

64. That is hearsay which pass muster.

Hearsay from Bernie or Hillary supporters doesn't matter because it comes from very biased sources. We all want to believe what we want to believe.

Given the lack of objective information about the convention, the most important point is that Clinton received the number of delegates commensurate with her victory margin. Shenanigans by both sides don't matter as long as the outcome is the right and fair one.

And I'd wager that shenanigans came from both sides.

[pa28]

20. Now we've seen delegates being stolen in broad daylight with no attempt at concealment.

It gives weight to the the reports of fraud and theft on behalf of Hillary Clinton in New York, Iowa and other primary states. The Democratic establishment has means, motive, opportunity and most of all willingness to fix results for their chosen candidate.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Here is another video from Congressional Candidate Dan Rolle describing as to why things turned out

the way they did.


https://www.facebook.com/danrolleforcongress/videos/238303879867291/

[YouDig]

27. By getting more votes. Bernie could have too, but people don't vote for him so much.

[ucrdem]

30. Yes, Clinton won Nevada by getting more votes.

But where's the CT in that?

[ucrdem]

28. So basically a bunch of Bernie delegates didn't have credentials and got tossed.

Hope that helps!

[SidDithers]

34. Bernie delegates couldn't bully their way to a victory in Nevada...

and now they're upset.



Sid

[tammywammy]

37. There were 58 Sanders delegates unable to receive credentials, along with 8 Clinton delegates.

Not 64.

[TwilightZone]

54. And some of those 58 had already quit the party in a fit of pique

[uponit7771]

60. +1

[Time for change]

68. That's a lie

They were purged. What were they doing at the convention if they had quite the party? They were there to fulfill their responsibilities as delegates, only to find that their registration had been purged or changed to Republican or some other party.

[TwilightZone]

74. Well, we could take their word for it...

Unless you think that Sanders' own supporters are lying about what happened?

https://np.reddit.com/r/NevadaForSanders/comments/4jd7nq/where_is_everybody/d35vi8d

"I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party"

"Were you one of the 64? Or was that something else?

[–]jqbr 19 points 1 day ago

Yes, this genius was one of them."

Sometimes, people need to take responsibility for their own actions. At least this guy owned up to screwing up.

Edit: more

"[–]SecurityDebacleClark -73 points 1 day ago

I was so disgusted with the DNC last month, I think it was NY. I thought about having this issue, but I thought I was in the clear. I didn't know there was this rule and I fucked up."

[brentspeak]

80. From whose a$$ did you pull that from? n/t

[TwilightZone]

83. Sanders for Nevada reddit

And...

[–]NinjaReedy 89 points 1 day ago

I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

[–]dragonmasterjg 11 points 1 day ago

Were you one of the 64? Or was that something else?

[–]jqbr 19 points 1 day ago

Yes, this genius was one of them.

And...

[–]elgarduque[S] 122 points 1 day ago

Literally the first rule of the convention is that you must be a registered Democrat. It seems like an obvious rule, but it is also explicitly stated.

permalink

[–]SandonBranderson 79 points 1 day ago

Low information delegates.


And...

[–]JC-Pose 12 points 1 day ago

Maybe you guys should go over to S4P and let them know how these guys screwed the pooch, because they are blaming EVERYONE except the knuckle-draggers that caused the problem...

Late, wrong party, credentials, etc... Is just plain embarrassing.

Also, pushing the meme that it's Hillary's fault, or NV Dems, or the DNC is just wrong too.

There's more, but I doubt you're interested. I'm sure the whole thread is just Clinton supporters pretending to be Sanders supporters to make you look bad. It's a conspiracy!

https://np.reddit.com/r/NevadaForSanders/comments/4jd7nq/where_is_everybody/

[brentspeak]

84. Considering that David Brock has admitted to sponsoring

an entire troll army to spread propaganda on the Web, why is it a stretch to think an anonymous Reddit thread is nothing more than bull$hit? Only a complete idiot, fool, and flunky wouldn't doubt the veracity of that thread.

Uh, that, of course, presupposes that you, obviously, doubt the veracity of a reddit thread...?

[TwilightZone]

86. Well, of course. Everything is a conspiracy.

An anonymous reddit thread - in Nevada for Sanders, so not really that anonymous, any more so than the DU Sanders forum - probably has more veracity than the endless "it's all a conspiracy" threads on DU that contain no information at all. Or the ones that use the Blaze as a source. Now *that* is a lack of veracity.

Is it possible the whole thing was faked? Sure, like the moon landing. If you really believe that the entire Nevada for Sanders sub-reddit is a Brock-funded illusion, you should probably think about switching to decaf.

The idea that some Sanders supporters might be human beings that make mistakes and that other Sanders supporters might call them out on it doesn't even register in your universe, which is interesting.

Here's an idea. Join Nevada for Sanders on reddit and ask some of the people who questioned why this guy switched his party allegiance if they're really Sanders supporters. You might not like what you find out, because frankly, they look pretty legit, and they actually look pretty reasonable to me. I think they're probably more representative of Sanders supporters than those on DU, and that's a good thing.

But then, I suppose you could just assume they're all Brock plants who are lying to you. Be sure to call them all liars and Brock plants before you leave. I'm sure they'll dig that. Then again, they might just reasonably disagree.

[snort]

39. As I posted elsewhere regarding the Sanders delegates:

Why would people who are so invested in the process make such a fundamental error? It seems highly unlikely, doesn't it? I call bullshit.

[Time for change]

69. Yes, it seems highly unlikely that one delegate would make such a fundamental error

But 58? It's more likely that the world will explode tomorrow.

Anybody who believe that 58 Sanders delegates forgot or willfully refused to register themselves as Democrats, rather than were purged in an illegal effort to win the state by the opposition is an IDIOT.

And the same can be said of anyone who believes that the purging of hundreds of thousands of voters in AZ, NY and other states was the fault of the voters.

[snort]

70. One? Sure, we screw up.

I let my passport lapse. Oops! But 58? You are correct, it would require an idiot to believe it. There appear to be many here and they are primarily Hillary supporters. Coincidence?

[Tarc]

40. That's a lot of words when you could just say "Clinton won 52.6% to 47.3% in Feb 20th"

You're welcome.

[StevieM]

53. Well said. +1. (eom)

[uponit7771]

61. +1

[disillusioned73]

65. K&R...

"The many and massive “irregularities” occurring in the Democratic primaries this year are not reflecting favorably on the Democratic Party, and there has been a lot of talk going on about a mass exodus from the Democratic Party following the Democratic convention."

I couldn't wait until then.. after my "closed primary" state was in the rear view I switched to Ind. for the first time in my lifetime..

Either the party evolves back to the left, or I withhold all of my support - financial or otherwise... this isn't sports where you pick a team and stick through the good times & the bad.. principles & policies do matter and I will stand firm..

[Blue_Tires]

72. LOL! Yeah, nice job trying to hide your link to TheBlaze.com

which is Glenn Beck's site... Did you think nobody would check it? Or are you going to play innocent and pretend now that you didn't know what kind of site theblaze.com was??

I'm always amused at the Berniestan propensity to dredge the most disreputable of sources for their precious anti-Hillary ammo...

[Time for change]

88. I'm not familiar with the Blaze

How can you say I tried to hide it, when I provided the link in the OP?

The article was consistent with other reports I've seen.

Here is one from USA Today, which is similar, though not quite as strong:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/20/hillary-clinton-wins-nevada-caucus-harry-reid-culinary-union-jon-ralston/80688750/

Anyhow, how do you explain why hundreds of Clinton delegates at the Clark County Convention either didn't show up or switched to Bernie, other than that they heard revelations that made them feel that the vote in NV was illegitimate.

[etherealtruth]

73. Oh dear God ... the Blaze ....really

[TwilightZone]

75. You actually linked to the Blaze as a source?

You cannot be serious.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. It's worse than just moving the goal posts.

It's moving the goal posts after the other team carries the ball into the end zone.

[TwilightZone]

78. Or people were human and just screwed up. Nah.

https://np.reddit.com/r/NevadaForSanders/comments/4jd7nq/where_is_everybody/d35vi8d

[Time for change]

79. The quote that you posted is not at the link.

[TwilightZone]

82. It's since been deleted. Hmm, I wonder why. No worries - he's referenced in several other posts

Expand the deleted posts and you'll find several references to the same conversation.

Example:

[–]NinjaReedy 89 points 1 day ago

I changed my registration from Democrat about three weeks ago when I went on a spur of disgust for the party

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

permalink

[–]dragonmasterjg 11 points 1 day ago

Were you one of the 64? Or was that something else?

permalink

And...

[–]elgarduque[S] 22 points 1 day ago

I don't understand getting in line too late, especially after what happened at county. It's annoying that people volunteer for this stuff and then don't take it seriously enough to not just show up but show up on time.


And...

[–]elgarduque[S] 122 points 1 day ago

Literally the first rule of the convention is that you must be a registered Democrat. It seems like an obvious rule, but it is also explicitly stated.

permalink

[–]SandonBranderson 79 points 1 day ago

Low information delegates.


[–]jqbr 18 points 1 day ago

Yes, this genius was one of them.

_________________________________________

On the other hand, several people get it:

Example:

[–]JC-Pose 12 points 1 day ago

Maybe you guys should go over to S4P and let them know how these guys screwed the pooch, because they are blaming EVERYONE except the knuckle-draggers that caused the problem...

Late, wrong party, credentials, etc... Is just plain embarrassing.

Also, pushing the meme that it's Hillary's fault, or NV Dems, or the DNC is just wrong too.

And...

[–]elgarduque[S] 122 points 1 day ago

Literally the first rule of the convention is that you must be a registered Democrat. It seems like an obvious rule, but it is also explicitly stated.

permalink

[–]SandonBranderson 79 points 1 day ago

Low information delegates.

[Time for change]

85. Yeah, a Bernie delegate changed his registration a few days before the convention,

claims what he did under an anonymous username, and then laughs about it - ha ha ha ha ha.

If you believe that you're very naive.

I'll bet 100-1 it was a Hillary troll who posted that, maybe one of the many who were paid to post stuff like that.

The actual delegates are claiming that they were purged, and there is now a lawsuit pending.

[TwilightZone]

89. As opposed to using Glenn Beck as a source? lol

Spend some time in the S4N sub-reddit. There are plenty of people who are upset about how Sanders supporters handled themselves in NV, upset at the ones who didn't bother to show up, and upset with guys like Mr. I Changed My Registration Because NY.

The vast majority of them are pretty reasonable and, as far as I'm concerned, much more likely to be providing accurate information than the average poster on DU, especially people who use places like the Blaze as a source. There are few places less credible than Glenn-Beck-istan.

This guy, for example. He was there, he's a Sanders supporter, and he debunks most of the nonsense being thrown around: https://np.reddit.com/r/NevadaForSanders/comments/4jexj9/what_happened_in_nv_today/

Oh, right. The entire Sanders for Nevada sub-reddit is a Brock-funded mirage, so he must be a plant. How could I forget.

[Faux pas]

77. Kickin'

[haikugal]

81. Recommended!! Thanks for this post!

[dchill]

87. K&R.