Sanders supporters' Nevada complaint ignored by party and press, reported as criminal disturbance

Sanders supporters say the Dems broke the rules in Nevada and stole delegates.

But the NYT reported the dispute as a criminal disturbance and failure by Sanders to back Clinton as the inevitable nominee. Senate Dems are pressuring Sanders directly.

Progressives with Sanders are resisting and organizing to disrupt the Dem convention.

Nina Turner, a prominent surrogate for Mr. Sanders, said that she had seen several emails from people planning acts of civil disobedience, and that talk of dissent in the Republican ranks over Mr. Trump masked the searing divisions among Democrats.

“People are talking about the Republicans having a brokered convention. I think we are sleeping on the Democrats,” Ms. Turner said. “And if Democrats believe that that’s not going to happen, they are just sadly mistaken. They have blinders on.”

Why doesn’t HRC just begin negotiating the platform with Sanders? This can’t be the right moment to pick a fight with progressive populists, can it?


But its her turn. Doesn’t Bernie get that that’s all that matters?


HRC’s caucus has almost no community sense.

It seems like all ads and superpac messaging. Why aren’t they talking about the platform? I don’t get it.

Populist progressives are demanding a stake in the outcome, a reason to vote. Why not get that done?

It’s like the DNC wants to sell us a new car. Or maybe sell us our own car.

Is the DNC really that overworked and cynical about its own party?


They want to sell us a nice little old lady, only ever driven to the church on Sundays. Promise.


All I cn allow myself to say because everything else feels indefinate and inarticulate is Clinton just sets off some deep seated alarm bells even trump doesn’t trigger. I don’t know why and I’m afraid that may make me come off as sexest.

It may be that Trump’s evil incompetence and selfishness is blatant and overt. Clinton’s tries to hide and insinuate that going against her makes you a backward sexist pig.

So… why? When Trump seems to be an unopposed candidate and the demacrats have at least two very viable candidates, one who you alinate at the risk of pissing off a lot of voters, yet it’s the republican convention that’s talked about?



I watched a report on this from The Young Turks last night before I saw how the NYT and others reported it. Mainstream news sources seem to be glossing over the reasons Bernie supporters were pissed off in the first place:


And here national news is making it look like a clinton/trump event is a sure win event.

I get it, by delegates Bernie is sunk, but at the same time it feels gods-damned insulting.


I think that’s right.

AFAIK, the charge was that Nevada dems cheated or bent or broke the rules to deny one or more delegates to Sanders.

Sidestepping the charge and painting the campaign with the actions of a few atypical individuals risks permanently alienating members of the progressive base.

I don’t know if @Cowicide is around or not. He may know more. This seems like an important issue for nat’l dems to resolve on the merits.


I don’t know why and I’m afraid that may make me come off as sexest.

Articulate your reasons or risk sounding like a concern troll.

For me it’s her classism and ignorance about what’s possible beyond what her rich backers tell her is possible. Trump is more viscerally worse and I hope he dies in a fire.


There’s a lot of weird coverage of this at the moment but from what I can sus out its an extention of what happened at the county level conventions a few weeks ago. So Hillary won the Nevada caucus, and based on the proportional allocation of delegates should have come out with a handful more pledge delegates for the nation convention in July. But caucuses (and Nevada in particular) are complicated and don’t neccisarily work that way. At the initial caucus itself you aren’t actually selecting the candidate. But allocating delegates to go and caucus at the county convention, where delegates are selected to caucus at the state convention, where the final pledged delegates are selected/allocated to candidate for the national convention.

So basically Hillary wins the caucus. But at the county convention several weeks later to too few of her delegates showed up while Sander’s campaign managed to turn out the vast bulk of theirs. So in that round of voting, Sanders came out ahead. He was able to have more delegates selected for the state convention than Hillary. Creating the opportunity for him to reverse the results of the caucus as actually voted by the people of Nevada, or at least salvage a few pledged delegates for the national convention.

So that’s when we come to the state convention the other day. From what I understand Bernie ran into a similar problem to what Hillary had at the county conventions. Fewer of his delegates showed up, while most of Hillary’s did. Making it more difficult for the campaign to make delegate gains over what would have been allocated based on the caucus. The numbers of delegates were nearly even, with Bernie having slightly more. And that’s when things get weird. When they went to certify the eligibility of the delegates involved, some of them were not eligible. Of those found not eligible all were found ineligible based on rules set back in 2014, rules all those involved had accepted and not protested during the county conventions and the caucus. Some of these people were not registered democrats, including some that had changed their party affiliation after the caucus or county conventions. Some were not in attendance; or could not be contacted/were unwilling to confirm their name, address or residency in the state. Some were not (or no longer) Nevada residents. Eligibility was apparently determined by a panel including equal involvement from both Sanders and Clinton supporters. Once this had been done Hillary had lost something like 8 delegates, and Sanders something like 64. Putting the delegate advantage back to Hillary (who remember actually won the caucus when public voting/caucusing took place).

This is what the dispute apparently focused on. Sander’s coalition of delegates disputed early procedural reports, not even counts or certifications. Basically status updates, on where the voting was sitting early in the vote process because they indicated a shift toward Hillary. There was booing of speakers, interruptions to proceedings etc. And the Sanders camp attempted to have their ineligible delegates re-admitted, and failed. Its also important to remember that ineligible delegates were allowed to contest the ruling in person, but few if any did (because again it seems like a lot of them weren’t actually there). There were calls for revotes, either on the rules/determinations or the actual results of the convention (hard to sus out), which also failed. That, and Hillary coming out ahead as voting continued, seems to have spured the violent reaction.

Now some reports, especially earlier ones, have over sold the level of violence. Chair throwing doesn’t seem to have happened, and the medical emergency that involved EMTs coming in was apparently unrelated. But from what I’ve read and the video I’ve seen there certainly was violent and threatening behavior on the part of the Sanders camp. Including rushing the stage, threats, and personal invective. It escalated as the night went on, and the convention continued several hours past its scheduled end. The casino (not the DNC or Hillary or anyone else), made the determination that the event had gotten too out of hand for them to provide adequate security. And kicked the entire convention out. Not just Sanders’ group. Not just delegates. Everyone. Sander’s delegates refused to leave the room until something? I’m not precisely sure but it may have been a total revote, or a rule change in their favor, or the re-admittance of the purged delegates. From what I’ve seen I’m not sure anything would have made them happy. Apparently casino security tried a number of tactics to get them to leave peacfully. Including cutting power and AC to the room. Before eventually having to physically remove them.

And in the days since Sander’s supporters have been posting personal info on people. Including The head of the Nevada DNC, harassing them personally. With death threats and personal attacks, and the ever popular vague references to families and kids.

So lets ignore all of that mess. And imagine that Sander’s group was totally successful. They won all their challenges, or had enough eligible delegates from minute one to avoid the whole situation. What was the base goal? What would the end result have been. Sander’s campaign would have reversed the publicly voted results of the Nevada Caucus. For a maximum gain of 4 delegates. FOUR.

From my perspective it looks pretty bad. It looks like the attempt from the Sanders camp was to gain more delegates than the actual people and voters of Nevada determined he should have. To take a win where the people had actually selected Hillary. His campaign and delegates were fine with these same rules and procedures when they allowed them to countermand the will of the people at the county conventions (and in other states where they’re working on the same thing). But when they didn’t allow him to maintain that advantage at the state convention the rules and procedures needed to be changed or end rounded. When that wasn’t possible suddenly those rules and procedures were unfair, undemocratic, and the people administering them were bad. Basically the complaint boils down to “we weren’t able to change things to give outselves an advantage, so we’ve been subjected to unfair treatment”. And how the fuck would it be more fair to reverse the results of the caucus through procedural non-sense? How is that more ethical? How is the Nevada DNC corrupt for not allowing that? For following the rules set a year ago? However brusquely, or however un-amenable they were to demands and arguments from Sanders’ delegates?

The end result here is that Hillary gets, pretty much, the number of pledged delegates she should have been allocated based on actually winning the Nevada Caucus. Rather than Bernie getting more delegates than he should have been allocated based on losing the Nevada Caucus.


The DNC has brought all this rules lawyering on itself by having such a messy system and then saying suck it up, this is our party and our rules.

The whole thing is a mess, and each cycle, people have more visibility of what a mess it is. This pretend almost-democracy they have right now isn’t helping bring the party together.

I guess it really isn’t helped by one candidate being someone whose support is mostly independent lefties and the other being a massive party insider who is very polarizing.

Clinton will get the nomination - and rightly so, with a big win in popular vote (even if that is inflated by lower turnout in caucus states) and should still win the presidency, but I wish everyone involved was doing a better job of getting the independent Sanders voters onboard. Still hoping for a Beep candidate that might help with that but fear we’ll end up with “You’ll like what you get, you’re not going to vote for Trump, are you?”, followed by blaming people she couldn’t inspire to vote for her if she ends up doing a Gore.


See also ‘I don’t know why.’ If i knew to begin with I’d outright say it.


Work on it. I’m not calling you out in this instance.


There’s always lower turn out in caucus states (vs primary states). In large part because the base requirements of participation are so onerous. You need to able to commit at least one full day to be involved at all. More if you’re selected as a delegate and move on to the conventions. A great many young, working, and especially non-white people simple can not do that. The procedural complexities are another. As is the degree to which they can be manipulated, by outsides or party members (particularly when they are open). Its the major reason most states have moved away from them and switched to primaries. Caucuses are at base an un-democratic holdover from the pre-primary era. An attempt to graft the public into the old closed door method of candidate selection.

More over caucuses tend to remain mostly in lower population, more rural states. And most often those that tend to be more conservative over all.

And its not just the DNC, its all caucuses. There’s a reason smaller, more conservative, more rural states keep them. It gives them an out sized influence at the national level, disproportionate to their population. And the groups that traditionally tend towards being incapable of participating tend to be those that more reliably break left. The GOP has an active interest in keeping them from participating in elections at any level. Which type of contest a party conducts is determined by state law. So the DNC didn’t bring this on themselves so much. The more likely to be GOP than not state senators who saddled their states with a caucus decades ago brung it on all of us. Any rules or complexities the DNC (or the GOP who’s rules are often an even bigger mess) has introduced since the new primary system was instituted in the 70’s are simply an attempt to make the shit sandwich function in some way. Or skew the shit sandwich in their preferred direction.

There’s a lot of rumors right now. And these things are seldom accurate. But almost all of those rumors (the ones I’ve heard) are swirling around undeniably progressive candidates to do just that. Quell the more ornery Sanders follows and bind the whole party together under a clearly progressive push. I don’t put much stock in any of that sort of speculation, but the consistency there has me thinking that her campaign sees this as a legit issue, and a legit way to build a stronger ballot. So its a good sign however they end up going.


Yes - that’s what I meant. Clinton is winning by 2 (3?) million in the popular vote, but that’s possibly partly inflated by her doing well in primary states while Sanders does better in caucus ones (of course, it’s likely that if primaries had been held in those states instead, Sanders’ percentage would have fallen, for the reasons you give as to who is excluded by caucuses).

Tim Kaine gets mentioned a lot and he doesn’t seem especially progressive. Nor does Cory Booker.


Elizabeth Warren is also heavily rumored, but I’m thinking less about who’s actually named than the rest of the content of this coverage. Almost everything I’ve seen involved unnamed sources or campaign insiders calling out the suggested candidates for the presence of or lack of progressive bonafides. And the less specific unsourced rumors seem to universally mention binding together the party, and capturing Bernie’s supporters by tacking that way as a major concern among other strategies. That’s either the media pushing their own preferred narrative, or evidence of a legitimate interest in doing just that from the campaign.


In the last couple of days the “Sanders supporters are violent and Sanders is bad for not stopping them” meme came out. I dropped another couple of people off my friends list.

I overheard someone yesterday saying “that Bern really pisses me off. I worked two jobs to put myself through college and…” …and you want other people to suffer too. Except that tuition has gone up almost four times as fast as the CPI, and minimum wage is well behind the CPI now.


As someone who is in graduate school and has been for a while now, I can tell you, the cost of paying for college has spiked dramatically in the last 10 years. It’s insane how much the cost of a public university education has spiked.


I got the cheapest possible bachelor’s degree back in 1992 – living with my parents, commuting to state university. The whole thing cost me about $10K total, which would be $17K in 2016 dollars. I did most of it on a merit scholarship and had no debt when I was done.

If I did the same thing today it’d cost over $42K (and the gas would cost three times as much too). Room and board adds about $10K a year, and out of state multiplies the tuition by about 150%.

It’s ridiculous.


Yep. Like I said.