Bernie wins Clark county NV convention vote

[Ebsy]

The Green Papers often has incorrect information. The speculation about the district delegates is coming directly from interpretation of the official rules.

[The Other Castro]

Oh I completely agree that these caucus rules are horrible, I'm just trying to figure out what people are talking about with Sanders shenanigans when it seems the only fault comes from the rules of the caucus itself and the lack in number of Clinton delegates.

I'm not calling shenanigans.  The Sanders people won today's vote fair and square; my complaint is this system that allowed for it in the first place.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, but just people trying to accuse the Sanders campaign for shifty tactics when it's the horrible no good dirty rotten caucus process to blame.

[dax00]

It must be re-mentioned that all of the Strip hotel owners wanted Hillary to win, because Sanders's fiscal policy would kill their bottom line. They also let Hillary campaigners in and kicked Sanders campaigners out (or tried to get them arrested) on Feb 20. Of course they have cameras in those ballrooms. Would I have feared for my job as staff at one of those hotel-casinos were I to have voted for Sanders? Maybe...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Green Papers often has incorrect information. The speculation about the district delegates is coming directly from interpretation of the official rules.

I quoted the official rules.

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, the Green Papers needs to be pretty much thrown in the trash at this point. I've encountered multiple instances of incorrect or outdated information listed on there: enough to make you question anything you're looking at on there.

[Erc]

Yep, I got burned here by The Green Papers.  I've done a careful job of reading the delegate selection plans for the post-Nevada caucus states, but apparently dropped the ball on Nevada and took the Green Papers' word as gospel.

[Shadows]

The Clinton hacks are the most un-classy people you will see. They will be happy with DNC rigging the game with 6 debates on days where no1 watches with networks like PBS.

They are okay with Super-delegates.

They are okay with victories by coin tosses

They are with ridiculous rules like change your affiliation 6 months back. They are happy with voter suppression.

But big problem with this? If you can't get your people to show up you shouldn't be running. No excitement, none of your supporters give a sh** vs the passion of the Sanders folk. The rules were not written yesterday - You know caucuses - You know the rules!

Anyways here is the deal with Bernie people - There are many people who have criticizes these processes & don't like winning this way. They have called for abolishing causes. There is a thread in reddit thanking the HRC supporters who went there & participated among this mess.

I don't like Caucuses  - Would like to see it abolished but with also Supers & many other things - You can't be hypocrite n oppose stuff only if they hurt. Sanders folks are way more classy in their reaction than the Clinton hacks

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan of caucuses, but let's not get all silly here. Everything went according to peculiar rules the caucuses are operating under and all conspiracy talk is just stupid.

Also, I wish some people would have as much intellectual integrity to remember about supedelegates while condemning caucuses as undemocratic. Both thing are. But I guess it's OK when it's benefit your candidate...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Also, does every bloody thread need to turn into Lyndon-jfern flame war?

[Shadows]

Also, does every bloody thread need to turn into Lyndon-jfern flame war?

I don't blame the jfern dude, Lyndon & a couple of clinton hacks are really bad posters!

[Blair]

The Clinton hacks are the most un-classy people you will see. They will be happy with DNC rigging the game with 6 debates on days where no1 watches with networks like PBS.

They are okay with Super-delegates.

Sanders has called for clinton supporting super-delegates from states that Clinton won to support him...

[Fusionmunster]

Also, does every bloody thread need to turn into Lyndon-jfern flame war?

I don't blame the jfern dude, Lyndon & a couple of clinton hacks are really bad posters!

Honey,  I hate to break this to you but you are probably one of the worst posters here. You have given some good insight during your time here but its overshadowed by your sheer hostility. You have been one of the major contributors to the toxicity in this subforum. Lyndon, Jfern and quite of few of the Hillary supporters you like to trash have been here for years and this forum is a better place for it. You and ProgressiveCanadian joined recently and 90% of the time, all your doing is trashing others.

[dax00]

After re-reading the Delegate Selection Plan a few times, I still am led to the conclusion that none of this is binding until 10 a.m. on 14 May. "Allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in each district by each preference" would  for no logical reason apply to the Feb 20 non-binding caucus, but rather the Congressional District Caucuses that occur at 2:30 p.m. on 14 May, for which the state delegates split up by district.

Presidential Preference is bound at 10 a.m. that day, so the 2:30 p.m. vote shouldn't see game theory shenanigans.

[The Other Castro]

Superdelegates suck, caucuses suck, burn it all down.

[Erc]

After re-reading the Delegate Selection Plan a few times, I still am led to the conclusion that none of this is binding until 10 a.m. on 14 May. "Allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in each district by each preference" would  for no logical reason apply to the Feb 20 non-binding caucus, but rather the Congressional District Caucuses that occur at 2:30 p.m. on 14 May, for which the state delegates split up by district.

Presidential Preference is bound at 10 a.m. that day, so the 2:30 p.m. vote shouldn't see game theory shenanigans.

Except there are many other states that do it precisely that way, with one (or all) sets of delegates bound based on the actual caucuses and the other based on the State Convention vote.  I'd say the language actually more supports the interpretation that it's based on the vote from the February 20 caucuses, though I agree it's more ambiguous than I first thought.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If I remember correctly Obama got more delegates from Iowa than he would be "entitled to" due to the January vote, when latter conventions voted.

[dax00]

Except there are many other states that do it precisely that way, with one (or all) sets of delegates bound based on the actual caucuses and the other based on the State Convention vote.  I'd say the language actually more supports the interpretation that it's based on the vote from the February 20 caucuses, though I agree it's more ambiguous than I first thought.

Which states, on the Democratic side, are you referring to? I'm aware that is the case with many of the states on the Republican side.

[Erc]

Except there are many other states that do it precisely that way, with one (or all) sets of delegates bound based on the actual caucuses and the other based on the State Convention vote.  I'd say the language actually more supports the interpretation that it's based on the vote from the February 20 caucuses, though I agree it's more ambiguous than I first thought.

Which states, on the Democratic side, are you referring to? I'm aware that is the case with many of the states on the Republican side.

Looking at my thread, apparently just Alaska has the same sort of split.  Washington has a weirder system that also has a split.

Other than Alaska and Washington, most of the post-Nevada caucuses bind their delegates based on the caucus vote.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not a fan of caucuses, but let's not get all silly here. Everything went according to peculiar rules the caucuses are operating under and all conspiracy talk is just stupid.

Also, I wish some people would have as much intellectual integrity to remember about supedelegates while condemning caucuses as undemocratic. Both thing are. But I guess it's OK when it's benefit your candidate...

Who is calling this a conspiracy?  The only conspiracy accusations I witnessed yesterday firsthand came from the Bernie side, and not one of them was verified or made any sense.

Who has argued in favor of superdelegates here?

[dax00]

Just did a lot of reading :/

My interpretation of the caucus and caucus/convention states's delegate selection plans -
Bound by initial caucus: Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, American Samoa, Minnesota, Guam, Virgin Islands;
District delegates bound only: Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota;
Not bound by initial caucus: Iowa, Nevada.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan of caucuses, but let's not get all silly here. Everything went according to peculiar rules the caucuses are operating under and all conspiracy talk is just stupid.

Also, I wish some people would have as much intellectual integrity to remember about supedelegates while condemning caucuses as undemocratic. Both thing are. But I guess it's OK when it's benefit your candidate...

Who is calling this a conspiracy?  The only conspiracy accusations I witnessed yesterday firsthand came from the Bernie side, and not one of them was verified or made any sense.

Who has argued in favor of superdelegates here?

I stand corrected.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If it were Hillary taking away delegates that Bernie rightfully won, the Sandernistas would be shrieking right now...

And the Hacks for Hillary brigade would be calling Caucuses as the only truly democratic way to select a Presidential nominee.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If it were Hillary taking away delegates that Bernie rightfully won, the Sandernistas would be shrieking right now...

And the Hacks for Hillary brigade would be calling Caucuses as the only truly democratic way to select a Presidential nominee.

lolwut?
Clinton has already been burned by caucuses in 2008 so the chances of this happening would be close to nil.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If it were Hillary taking away delegates that Bernie rightfully won, the Sandernistas would be shrieking right now...

And the Hacks for Hillary brigade would be calling Caucuses as the only truly democratic way to select a Presidential nominee.

lolwut?
Clinton has already been burned by caucuses in 2008 so the chances of this happening would be close to nil.

Even in that post, you make it clear that your problem isn't with caucuses themselves so much as it is with the fact that Hillary has generally done poorly in them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If it were Hillary taking away delegates that Bernie rightfully won, the Sandernistas would be shrieking right now...

And the Hacks for Hillary brigade would be calling Caucuses as the only truly democratic way to select a Presidential nominee.

lolwut?
Clinton has already been burned by caucuses in 2008 so the chances of this happening would be close to nil.

Even in that post, you make it clear that your problem isn't with caucuses themselves so much as it is with the fact that Hillary has generally done poorly in them.

It's not my problem if you don't read my posts. Besides some unreconstructed Berniebots like jfern I don't think there is a single person who thinks caucuses are an appropriate way to choose a president.