Bernie has now won Nevada? Wtf?

[sggatecl]

Just when I think I have a handle on the shit show that is the DNC primary/caucus system...I'm confused again.

Seeing some rumblings on Reddit and Twitter that HRC delegates didn't show up to some meeting that they were supposed to and those delegates swing to Sanders now?

Someone please explain this insanity to me.

 

[sggatecl]

Someone just explained it pretty clearly:

Nevada caucus (which already happened) is used to elect county delegates.

County delegates (yesterday, today) are used to elect state delegates at county convention.

State delegates are used to elect national delegates at state convention.

National delegates are used to nominate the Democratic candidate at national convention.

From what I understand, none of the delegates are bound at any level except the national level according to the Nevada state election laws. Other states have different rules, where delegates are bound at each level, or other changes, etc.

Therefore, a couple of things can happen at the country convention (which is what just happened):
County delegates can change their mind and decide to support Hillary over Bernie, or vice-versa. That's why each campaign must make sure as best as they can they choose delegates that will not waver in their support.

County delegates may not show up to the county convention. In this case, alternate delegates are used on a first-come-first-serve basis. Thus, each campaign must make sure their delegates show up on convention day,

What it looks like happened is that the county delegates for Hillary did not all show up; so they were replaced by alternates who support Bernie; and some changed their mind to support Bernie instead of Hillary.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Just when I think I have a handle on the shit show that is the DNC primary/caucus system...I'm confused again.

Seeing some rumblings on Reddit and Twitter that HRC delegates didn't show up to some meeting that they were supposed to and those delegates swing to Sanders now?

Someone please explain this insanity to me.

I think they're making stuff up as the go.

 

[sggatecl]

I think they're making stuff up as the go.

Even though it hurts my least favorite candidate...this is still the stupidest shit. Pretty embarrassing that this is how it's done.

 

[Thumb]

Even though it hurts my least favorite candidate...this is still the stupidest shit. Pretty embarrassing that this is how it's done.

It's really no worse than when Bernie wins a state but Hag Face sits back and cackles because she still came away with a higher delegate count because she can buy the superdelegates.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Those Super-delegates are down right stupid..

 

[sggatecl]

It's really no worse than when Bernie wins a state but Hag Face sits back and cackles because she still came away with a higher delegate count because she can buy the superdelegates.

Those Super-delegates are down right stupid..

It really is flat out embarrassing. But since the system is serving it's purpose for the powers that be, it ain't changing anytime soon.

 

[grandy]

I'm sure a coin flip will reverse that.

 

[Michchamp]

It's really no worse than when Bernie wins a state but Hag Face sits back and cackles because she still came away with a higher delegate count because she can buy the superdelegates.

at least one super-delegate switched to Bernie after his district went to Sanders. I think more will do that eventually.

I assume fear of retribution from the Clintons is why more have not, since they all still figure she'll win. it was kinda similar to the big unions moving to back Hillary right away, even though locals and a lot of members support Bernie (since NAFTA, and the coming TPP are horrible for workers, and she supported both). the union bosses though figured early she was the shoe in and decided tonthrow their support behind her.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

at least one super-delegate switched to Bernie after his district went to Sanders. I think more will do that eventually.

I assume fear of retribution from the Clintons is why more have not, since they all still figure she'll win. it was kinda similar to the big unions moving to back Hillary right away, even though locals and a lot of members support Bernie (since NAFTA, and the coming TPP are horrible for workers, and she supported both). the union bosses though figured early she was the shoe in and decided tonthrow their support behind her.

I'm thinking if somehow Bernie can win NY, this all changes.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm thinking if somehow Bernie can win NY, this all changes.

according to the polls, he's favored to win WI in a landslide. I think other remaining states that were huge Hillary margins are also tightening (i.e. NY & CA).

THe polling in WI is interesting... it swung way over to Sanders in a couple weeks. I wonder if the pollsters learned from Michigan and changed up their methodology?

I'm not saying Sanders is going to win or anything, but the trend has been him outperforming the polls, and not the other way around.

I think the really, really shocking thing is the fundraising; he has done really well, and with the amount of money raised and amount on hand, he can't be ignored like prior people's candidates were. And the avg. size of a donation to him is WAY WAY lower than the huge sums Billary has received.

Patting myself on the back for doing my part.

 

[dubbsco]

Are they going to revote in Arizona?

 

[sggatecl]

Are they going to revote in Arizona?

People were suing and what not but I get the feeling it won't happen.

 

[dubbsco]

Even the secretary of state confirmed voter fraud... How can they not revote??

 

[sggatecl]

Even the secretary of state confirmed voter fraud... How can they not revote??

An excellent question that I wish I had the answer to.

 

[Spartanmack]

Even the secretary of state confirmed voter fraud... How can they not revote??

Because it's not true - anyone who has been on DSF during an election cycle knows that Democrats don't engage in voter fraud. Ever. Only (and all) Republicans commit voter fraud.

 

[Michchamp]

Because it's not true - anyone who has been on DSF during an election cycle knows that Democrats don't engage in voter fraud. Ever. Only (and all) Republicans commit voter fraud.

maybe, by being on DSF he knows the real rule is Republitards can always deny the existence of something - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (link, link, link, and jesus, there are plenty more just a google away) by simply claiming any evidence shows "a liberal bias" under the principle that "you can never be wrong if you always refuse to admit you're wrong."

and yes, i know he's talking about Arizona in this most recent example, but it still applies there since the fraud is not partisan per se (it never is); it merely reflects the will of the Conservative establishment over the will of the people. in chicago for example, you have establishment democrats committing voter fraud against progressive democrats.

 

[Spartanmack]

maybe, by being on DSF he knows the real rule is Republitards can always deny the existence of something - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (link, link, link, and jesus, there are plenty more just a google away) by simply claiming any evidence shows "a liberal bias" under the principle that "you can never be wrong if you always refuse to admit you're wrong."

and yes, i know he's talking about Arizona in this most recent example, but it still applies there since the fraud is not partisan per se (it never is); it merely reflects the will of the Conservative establishment over the will of the people. in chicago for example, you have establishment democrats committing voter fraud against progressive democrats.

wow, that's amazing - you found 3 articles that support your opinion about voter ID laws. And you say there are many more articles just like them, no doubt citing the same study. You are really good at this.

 

[sggatecl]

Because it's not true - anyone who has been on DSF during an election cycle knows that Democrats don't engage in voter fraud. Ever. Only (and all) Republicans commit voter fraud.

 

[Michchamp]

wow, that's amazing - you found 3 articles that support your opinion about voter ID laws. And you say there are many more articles just like them, no doubt citing the same study. You are really good at this.

I understand nuance is not your strong suit, nor is attention to detail, so I'll point out here that the first link refers to an opinion written by Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit, a Reagan appointee, and a well-regarded judge by both sides of the political spectrum, which eviscerates Wisconsin's voter ID law and the premise behind the need for it.

you can find the actual opinion fairly easily (it's linked to in the article) and read it for yourself. most important point it makes: voting is a fundamental right, and as such can only be infringed upon or restricted by statute if there is a compelling reason, with an actual show of harm. Sure, I guess people pretending to be other people in order to vote would be compelling; the problem is no state has been able to show evidence this is an actual problem. and if there are some instances of it occuring, it's certainly not widespread enough to justify a law that disenfranchises some not insiginificant portion of voters (other article estimates voter ID laws suppress a whopping 8% of the Democratic vote).

the idea itself is ludicrous; no campaign is sending a bunch of people to polls in order to vote as other people in great enough numbers to skew an election. and if they tried it, they'd easily be discovered when actual voters are told they cannot vote because someone else already voted as them. it's fucking absurd.

but if you can continue to stand behind this idea that voter ID fraud is a problem in the face of all this evidence to the contrary... you are Republitard material.