HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "We rate this claim False...

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:10 AM

"We rate this claim False." -Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor",etc

"....However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns. The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.

In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.

Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room. And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange.

Regardless, upset Sanders supporters rushed the main stage, hurling obscenities at Lange and other members of the party’s executive board and booing over remarks from California Sen. Barbara Boxer delivered on behalf of the Clinton campaign."

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

Sounds like the Sanders people wanted a fight - created a fight - are they denying they created a fight and are blaming the system - because they think they can score political points that way.

18 replies, 1065 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply "We rate this claim False." -Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor",etc (Original post)
bloom May 2016 OP
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #1
bloom May 2016 #2
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #3
casperthegm May 2016 #5
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #7
Politicalsanity May 2016 #13
Bonobo May 2016 #4
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #9
joshcryer May 2016 #11
Politicalsanity May 2016 #14
joshcryer May 2016 #15
Bonobo May 2016 #16
joshcryer May 2016 #17
joshcryer May 2016 #12
workinclasszero May 2016 #6
azurnoir May 2016 #8
frylock May 2016 #18
joshcryer May 2016 #10

Response to bloom (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:19 AM

1. Politifact needs to review its methods. It is using circular logic here.

It states the preliminary and final counts, both of which were contested, prove that the yeas should have won, but how can that prove that if its contested and they didn't allow a head count(as the rules stated was necessary).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:21 AM

2. I think politifact sums it up pretty well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Reply #2)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:24 AM

3. But the circular logic is very clear.

They take a contested number and try to use it to show everything else is valid. Their initial premise is flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #3)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:27 AM

5. Excellent point

There's no evidence to show that the contested number was accurate, because they didn't take the proper steps to validate it. So basing everything on assumptions about a number that we don't really know is...kind of stupid. I like politifact and use it frequently, but this analysis is clearly flawed.

HRC supporters are simply convinced that this is a case of Bernie supporters pouting. I don't like losing, but if the numbers add up and we lose, then so be it. What I can't accept is when the DNC pulls crap like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to casperthegm (Reply #5)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:44 AM

7. Plus the first count is the one that took place before the 9:30 vote.

So people were still registering. And I can't attest to the validity of them, but there have been some screenshots of text messages Hillary delegates received telling them to get there early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #7)

Thu May 19, 2016, 10:41 AM

13. ^^^^ THIS

Calling for the vote early, while potential delegates were still checking in, was clearly a chickens*** move. And it was clearly orchestrated well ahead of time.

Add to that the number of delegates who were struck from the rolls and not allowed to show their actual eligibility (and one has to wonder why they were removed in the first place, and *why* they were removed).

And then looking at the sheer number of times that parliamentary procedures were ignored during the convention...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:26 AM

4. Also fails to mention that a head count vote is required when voice vote in inconclusive.

In this case, calling the voice vote inconclusive would be the most GENEROUS thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #4)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:46 AM

9. Yeah, with a crowd split almost 50/50 as they claim(which I would argue)

If the vote split even, it should have gone to the head count. They don't even entertain the notion that people from Hillary's side could have voted nay, and vice versa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #4)

Thu May 19, 2016, 10:14 AM

11. Maybe she would have had the entire chair not been accosted.

Because they did a preliminary head count.

Oh, and apparently, "The State Convention shall be called to order at 9:00 a.m." So the preliminary to permanent rule change wasn't even out of order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Thu May 19, 2016, 10:52 AM

14. except that the rule change vote was pushed through

The rule change vote was pushed through without discussion, though, against standard parliamentary procedures. The vote for the temporary rules changes had been scheduled for 10:00 am. The actual vote was taken at 9:30 am, while potential delegates were still being checked in.

The preliminary head count was invalid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalsanity (Reply #14)

Thu May 19, 2016, 11:12 AM

15. They called to order at 9:00am.

There is nothing in the rules about what time the preliminary rule to permanent change is supposed to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #11)

Thu May 19, 2016, 11:21 AM

16. There is seemingly no end to your rationalization for dishonesty. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #16)

Thu May 19, 2016, 11:24 AM

17. What dishonesty?

Politifact agrees with me. The only astonishing thing I see here is that there are so many DUers who are willing to overturn the will of the Nevada caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobbobbins01 (Reply #1)

Thu May 19, 2016, 10:17 AM

12. Because if there's no 2/3rds majority you can't change the rules.

It's pretty simple, really.

Let's say the temporary rules don't pass, what do you do? Adjourn the caucus? Anarchy? That seems to have been the plan:



Operation Chaos 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:28 AM

6. Everybody knows its false

 

It was the end of the Sanders campaign for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #6)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:46 AM

8. ooh is that what's called the bandwagoning technique? everybody knows -lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #6)

Thu May 19, 2016, 01:22 PM

18. It was the end of the Sanders campaign for sure.

And this time we really really really mean it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:50 AM

10. I want to see Snopes' take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread