Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

riversedge

(70,259 posts)
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:17 AM May 2016

Two states where Sanders won lopsided caucus victories have now held higher-turnout non-binding pri

This will give Hillary some mojo in CA I do believe.

PS--anyone recall the other one.

Tweet:
Steve Kornacki ?@SteveKornacki 8h8 hours ago

Two states where Sanders won lopsided caucus victories have now held higher-turnout non-binding primaries. Clinton has won both of them.

613 retweets 653 likes



17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. We the people, an important term. Sanders is losing based on the voting of the people
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:27 AM
May 2016

Sanders would be losing in the GE.

LisaM

(27,815 posts)
13. Almost three times the turnout.
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:16 PM
May 2016

I think the caucuses were dominated by a vocal minority and not all Dems either.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
3. Hillary winning the popular vote in Washington
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:35 AM
May 2016

probably doesn't bode well for Sanders in California. Caucuses need to go,they aren't democratic and don't reflect the wishes of the voters. Another hollow "victory" for Sanders.

Cha

(297,378 posts)
5. YAY.. Momentum! The Hillary Super Dels in WA & NE can point to these wins from The People~
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:41 AM
May 2016

Thank you, rivers~

riversedge

(70,259 posts)
6. Great point Cha. You are spot on. Yes, the SD' can now feel
Wed May 25, 2016, 07:44 AM
May 2016

better when voting for Hill in these states. spot on.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
12. So where are the sanders supporters now? Demanding the will of the people
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:03 PM
May 2016

Be respected???..,oops my bad...only the will of the people when it's for certain candidates

drray23

(7,634 posts)
15. so I made the point on a thread in GDP
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:48 PM
May 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2048859


That I believe it is because caucuses inherently favor Bernie and his young supporters. I find it hard to imagine for a millennial to be able to stand up to their peers and say they want to vote Hillary. Given the behavior of Sander's supporters as evidenced in Nevada and other rallies, It is not hard to see that a process where one has no privacy for votes would be very much influenced by peer pressure and bullying.

I believe in one person, one vote. Not in mobs.

JSup

(740 posts)
16. Caucuses...
Wed May 25, 2016, 12:57 PM
May 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary#Types_of_primaries_and_caucuses
Franchise in a primary or caucus is governed by rules established by the state party, although the states may impose other regulations.

While most states hold primary elections, a handful of states hold caucuses. Instead of going to a polling place, voters attend local private events run by the political parties, and cast their selections there. The advantage of caucuses is that the state party runs the process directly instead of having the state and local governments run them. The disadvantage is that most election laws do not normally apply to caucuses.

A handful of states practice non-binding "beauty contests", which are public opinion surveys for use by caucus delegates to select candidates to a state convention, which then in turn selects delegates to the national convention.


http://thelibrary.org/blogs/article.cfm?aid=1750
What is the difference between a binding and a non-binding primary?

In a binding primary, elected delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they pledged their support for, whereas in a non-binding primary, voters' wishes are considered advisory. Missouri's Presidential Preference Primary is a non-binding primary.


So all of these delegates in Washington are (legally) ignoring the will of the voters.

Democracy: It's what we say it is.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Two states where Sanders ...