just imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, say in Michigan. The screaming would be deafening.

Maybe Hillary supporters should try to fan those faint dying embers of enthusiasm.

Just saying'.

Or maybe you should become a maid, a bus boy, a dishwasher, or a bar maid at a non -unioned hotel casino or any hotel/casino for that matter, and try to get a day off.

"Just saying."


Oh, thanx for kicking my thread.

I know some of your associates tried to obfuscate that fact by suggesting guests at the casino could vote as if Mike and Jan , from Los Angeles, who were staying at the Rio could just mosey down to the caucus site there while the vote was taken place and participate.

As I said in my seminal post the most vulnerable were the most disenfranchised.


The fact anybody would endorse, implicitly or explicitly, dilution of the vote is reprehensible, deplorable, and shameful. That's what Republicans do, "just sayin."

They voted at the casino/hotels where they worked, catering to the needs of the bourgeoisie. I have had friends that are hotel maids. This is what they have to put up with; cleaning ropes (google "rope urban dictionary&quot from bed sheets, pillows, and comforters, cleaning rooms where guys deliberately walk around naked because there's a female in the room, and cleaning toilets where people indadvertently or deliberately refused to flush.

That these people were systematically disenfranchised and some people who hold themselves out as big D and small d democrats applaud it makes me cry.


"I shudder to think God is just."

And you are aware that Clinton delegates can change their votes, as I believe I read some did. Again, that goes back to enthusiasm and what has been said all along about Bernie... Once they get to know him, they like him. His numbers have consistently gained where hers have dropped. State after state. That is her risk in caucus states, if she's unable to maintain that favorability. But that's hard when she just isn't likable.

Further, it's already been proven that both camps received the wrong information. Both camps did their best to get their caucus goers out, despite the wrong information. I saw a Hillary letter with correct info yesterday. And it was initially presented that they were given correct info, and Bernie people weren't. So, it's clear they did get right info from the campaign. At least they tried. Further, the date was on the county Dem website, if anyone bothered to look. But again, it comes down to motivation.

I absolutely respect that many employees might have had work issues. That is why alternatives are available, first. But also, they were informed of their commitment before they were even asked to volunteer to be a delegate. So this was a choice to commit to. But stuff does happens, like work, like family, like illness and all sorts of terrible things - so there are alternates for that.

That's the system in the state, and that's the system these delegates signed up for. Like it or not, they aren't bound to the candidate beyond initially entering as that candidates delegate. Assuming enough even show.

This has been one of the most illuminating incidences of this entire primary. It really has.

But, as I have said, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, the casino sites went 70-30 for Hillary so of course she will be hurt more by a second vote, since her voters were less likely to have the opportunity to vote again.

to mingle with some obnoxious people. For what. They have to skip out on grocery money for that? Hardly.

Now contrast that with the privilege of Bernie supporters there taking lots of selfies and uploading their fake revolution talking points to Social Media along with a silly parade all for the online warriors.

This just looked like sour grapes and payback over Dolores Huerta mobilizing the labor vote on caucus day.

How much leverage does a maid. a bus boy, or a dishwasher at a non-unionized hotel/casino have?

It goes both ways. Its all about enthusiasm.

So it's obviously NOT about enthusiasm when you have practical choices to make like how full you want your paycheck.

There is zero enthusiasm for Clinton, and it gets less every week

labor votes. So if they were Bernie supporters, they wouldn't have been booing her. Duh.

Wanting a full paycheck and not being able to take time off doesn't mean they lack enthusiasm. The constituency DSB is talking about is listed in his OP.

That snopes link is supposedly what was being said. And even then it's an alternative translation. No question she was being booed. There was even video of Susan Sarandon confronting her. Bernie supporters and Susan Sarandon obviously took issue with her.

All the witnesses, except for one other Clinton-supporter, say the opposite of what you are promoting, also.

Huerta was there to represent labor, and she was chastised. You can pick any number of words for it that you want. She was shouted down.

as well, when her interpretation was just slightly different, but confirmed by the video.

Susan Sarandon ✔ ?@SusanSarandon
Link to the entire vid. The translation ask starts at 53:30 & mod says English Only at 55:18. NO CHANTING. https://t.co/3bxIs9eKJy

Cindy Rivera ?@cin_d25
@SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera thank you @SusanSarandon for the truth!! The Clinton campaign and its supporters should be ashamed for lying

Gaby Hoffmann ✔ ?@gabymhoffmann
@cin_d25 @SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera I was also there. No one shouted English only except the moderator. I was very tuned into this.
…
As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

of time. You're not going to tell me what I saw with my own eyes. I also saw the vicious attacks on Huerta here, so that just confirmed my assessment. She had a different interpretation of the shouting/bullying and she was attacked as a liar. Look up the threads here and quit spamming me with bullshit. I'm so sick of Bernie supporters bullying people into dismissing what they see with their own eyes.

And no one could talk about it here without getting posts hidden, which is just more evidence of this disgusting tactic used to silence people who see things for themselves. Sick of this....

Then she was called a liar here. That's what I saw. So quit spamming me with your bullshit bullying tactic to force me into kowtowing just because you think you can get posts hidden.

Susan Sarandon ✔ ?@SusanSarandon
Link to the entire vid. The translation ask starts at 53:30 & mod says English Only at 55:18. NO CHANTING. https://t.co/3bxIs9eKJy

Cindy Rivera ?@cin_d25
@SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera thank you @SusanSarandon for the truth!! The Clinton campaign and its supporters should be ashamed for lying

Gaby Hoffmann ✔ ?@gabymhoffmann
@cin_d25 @SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera I was also there. No one shouted English only except the moderator. I was very tuned into this.
…
As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

Susan Sarandon, a Bernie supporter, openly confronted her. She was called a liar. None of the labor/Clinton supporters there were doing this. You can spam bullshit all day long, but if Bernie supporters were supporting Huerta, she wouldn't have been booed.

Susan Sarandon ✔ ?@SusanSarandon
Link to the entire vid. The translation ask starts at 53:30 & mod says English Only at 55:18. NO CHANTING. https://t.co/3bxIs9eKJy

Cindy Rivera ?@cin_d25
@SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera thank you @SusanSarandon for the truth!! The Clinton campaign and its supporters should be ashamed for lying

Gaby Hoffmann ✔ ?@gabymhoffmann
@cin_d25 @SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera I was also there. No one shouted English only except the moderator. I was very tuned into this.
…
As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

If Bernie supporters were supporting Huerta, they would not have been booing her.

Bernie supporters booing Huerta were trying to hamper her speaking Spanish because they were obviously threatened it would help the labor votes there to support Clinton. They openly booed Huerta. That was a tacit acknowledgement that Huerta was a threat and she was harassed. Then she was lied about. Her interpretation was slightly different, and she was harassed for that.

No one has to spam links to see for themselves what happened.

Susan Sarandon ✔ ?@SusanSarandon
Link to the entire vid. The translation ask starts at 53:30 & mod says English Only at 55:18. NO CHANTING. https://t.co/3bxIs9eKJy

Cindy Rivera ?@cin_d25
@SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera thank you @SusanSarandon for the truth!! The Clinton campaign and its supporters should be ashamed for lying

Gaby Hoffmann ✔ ?@gabymhoffmann
@cin_d25 @SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera I was also there. No one shouted English only except the moderator. I was very tuned into this.
…
As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

constituency there, who presumably supported Clinton. So they tried to thwart her and stop her. It was a tacit acknowledgement that Huerta was a threat to them, or they would not have stopped her from trying to assist the Spanish speakers.

Huerta was bullied, and then she was called a liar when she posted accounts of her experiences.

Posting a spam video does not change that Bernie supporters were threatened by Huerta and were trying to silence her or hinder her. We can all see what happened with our own eyes, so trying to bully people into kowtowing is good to get posts hidden, but it doesn't change what happened.

Susan Sarandon ✔ ?@SusanSarandon
Link to the entire vid. The translation ask starts at 53:30 & mod says English Only at 55:18. NO CHANTING. https://t.co/3bxIs9eKJy

Cindy Rivera ?@cin_d25
@SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera thank you @SusanSarandon for the truth!! The Clinton campaign and its supporters should be ashamed for lying

Gaby Hoffmann ✔ ?@gabymhoffmann
@cin_d25 @SusanSarandon @AmericaFerrera I was also there. No one shouted English only except the moderator. I was very tuned into this.
…
As Sarandon correctly stated, the segment in dispute started around the 53:30 mark, when parties called for a Spanish-language translator. As she indicated, at 55:18 the caucus moderator (not Sanders' supporters) simply stated that the inability to locate a neutral translator meant the caucus would continue in "English only." At no point did any Sanders supporters appear to have refused a translator based on the fact that translation was objectionable to them; nor was "English only" used in a pejorative fashion. The term was invoked a single time, during the moderator's assertion that no suitable translator was located to provide Spanish-language translations:

http://www.snopes.com/sanders-english-only-huerta/

constituency there, who presumably supported Clinton. So they tried to thwart her and stop her. It was a tacit acknowledgement that Huerta was a threat to them, or they would not have stopped her from trying to assist the Spanish speakers.

Huerta was bullied, and then she was called a liar when she posted accounts of her experiences.

Posting a spam video does not change that Bernie supporters were threatened by Huerta and were trying to silence her or hinder her. We can all see what happened with our own eyes, so trying to bully people into kowtowing is good to get posts hidden, but it doesn't change what happened.

There were multiple videos posted on the internet. Multiple videos. Huerta's interpretation is that she was bullied and shouted down and she was called a liar by Bernie supporters. My comments surround the entire event which was well-documented on the internet. Huerta's translation was attacked when it was an accurate translation of what we could all see with our own eyes.

It is pretty clear you are incorrect and too obtuse to accept that fact, no matter how many times you copy and paste your poor argument in the face of undeniable evidence.

sense that you would only focus on the "facts" that support the anti-Clinton theme. It was obvious Huerta was a threat to the Bernie supporters because she was speaking Spanish to the labor constituency. You can enjoy all your "facts" that you want, but Huerta was a threat, and she was treated as such.

Her "crime" was translating her experiences in a somewhat different way, and that is it. That's why it's so hilarious to see the Bernie supporters call people "liars" when they demand that all meaning is lost if words are not ordered correctly. It's obvious what she meant, and it's obvious they considered her a threat. I could see it in the video, and I don't need someone telling me what I saw.

And there is no "wrong" about interpreting a nasty video any way I want to. But it makes sense that things are always made personal as an easy out.

ground game and leadership. Her delegates weren't coached and reminded to come. They didn't come. Bernie's did and they come from the same pool of people, work and life. This is about fucking up on HRC's side. Yes, the caucuses are weird but they are what we have. No one talked about changing them before this. We can whine about it but they are what we have. Bring game for the system or lose. She walked away from Nevada figuring it was over and she won. She messed it up herself, no one else.

Per the Ralston Reports HRC won the casino sites 70-30. If you are part of the hotel/casino wait staff, especially at a non-unionized casino hotel, it is difficult if not impossible to get time off... These folks have little economic leverage. What part of that don't you understand?

the caucus are anti democratic and I have said so for over a decade. So don't go accusing me of all the sudden being anti caucus.

When delegates are elected the night of the Nevada caucus, and they don't show up for their County Convention--that's not disenfranchisement.

The night of the caucuses, people who want to be delegates sign up to do so. They are given information about the date and time of the County Convention, several weeks prior to the County Convention.

These delegates had several weeks to plan. It's a commitment that only the most ardent supporters make, the night of the caucus.

There were 500 people in my caucus. We picked 9 total delegates. Six for Clinton; 3 for Bernie. To suggest that you know what these people do for a living, is laughable. You don't know who these people are, where they work--or even if they are employed. Presumptions about their jobs (or even if they have a job) are ludicrous. You have no idea who these people are and what they do.

What is fact is that hundreds of Hillary delegates did not show. That signals lack of enthusiasm. Lack of commitment.

In my state of Iowa, this happened to Hillary in Polk County, the largest county in Iowa. 117 delegates didn't show up for Hillary.

If this continues to happen in these post-caucus conventions--Hillary's delegate totals will erode. A few delegates here and there may not seem like a big deal--but if this becomes widespread, it could morph into a serious problem for her.

This happened to Hillary in 2008, in caucus states. Her delegate support eroded. The night of the Iowa caucus, Obama only won one more delegate than Clinton. By the time the process reached the Democratic National Convention--Obama had 9 more delegates than Hillary.

This is...a critical situation for Hillary. If Bernie does take this all the way to the convention and these delegates continue to no-show for Hillary--Bernie could potentially gain a significant number of delegates off of this.

Something else to keep in mind. No-shows are one thing. People who defect to Bernie are another. If her popularity erodes or if Bernie surges, or if her FBI investigation causes doubts about her, pledged delegates who went to Clinton the night of these caucuses-could defect to Bernie. Like I said, this happened with Obama. This could mean pledged delegate gains (anywhere from 10-50+) for Bernie. That's not even a worse-case scenario.

But please--to assert that Nevada delegates were "disenfranchised" is blatant misinformation (at worst) or complete ignorance of the caucus system (at best). You make a commitment the night of the caucus and you either honor it or you don't.

I do think this is the undemocratic overthrow of an election by elites. Apparently Bernie's campaign was given secret data yet again. This is sleeze of the highest order, plain and simple.

They are celebrating their victory

r/SandersForPresidentWe Need You to Be A Delegate
NEVADA HAS A DELEGATE CRISIS -- PLEASE READ TO HELP
u/skapunkin3d, 20h
SEIU WAS ABSOLUTELY OVERRUN BY NEW SANDERS DELEGATES TONIGHT. THE LINE WAS DISGUSTING FOR HOURS. YOU MADE THIS HAPPEN REDDIT. I CANT EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE, BERNERS. WE DID IT. THEY WERE SHOCKED AND ENTIRELY UNPREPARED.

https://m.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4cltkl/nevada_has_a_delegate_crisis_please_read_to_help/

There was no disenfranchisement, they didn't fucking bother to show up and vote. When you caucus and are chosen as a delegate you are told how it works. Those delegates, Hillary's delegates chose to not be there. They. Couldn't. Be. Bothered.

The narrative sold in the caucusing before was that Sanders people click and like but don't vote, but now that the shoe is on the other foot it is Hillary Clinton's people were unable to caucus because of their jobs. Implying the Sander's voters don't work. In reality it is an enthusiasm gap that has recently developed, and they are looking for excuses to prop up the candidate with less enthusiasm. I predict after this sentence the new meme/ spin will be , but but she has 2.5 million more votes... so either you can vote or you can't but damn you do not get it both ways.

the elite class assumes everything will get done for them.

They were also saying the other day that they use logic, and didn't get caught up in to the passion or emotion/enthusiasm or something like that?!?? Well, logically speaking, if you don't have some passion, emotion, or enthusiasm for your candidate - you really aren't going to go out of your way for them. Just like they aren't going to go out of their way for you.

Unless elite means not having a car, not having a savings account, and living in a forty year old rent controlled 450 square foot studio apartment.

range of folks for any candidate. but it certainly seems as though clinton herself did not expect to have to work this hard for the nomination, and lets face it she is used to having people to do stuff for her. and i would not be surprised if some of her supporters who are well off have a similar attitude. some of them perhaps even volunteered to be delegates.

needs to chew his ass for dropping the ball this time. Let me assure you, I well know exactly what maids, busboys, dishwashers, card dealers, bar maids and bar tenders do. I have done those jobs and I live in a caucus state and have gotten off work to caucus. I also know those casino workers were causing during work hours when they were chosen as Hillary delegates I repeat. Look it up,
Harry called in a favor and got them there during their work hours to caucus when they were chosen as Hillary delegates, Harry should have called in another favor and got them there this time, if they were working.
Harry as a good democrat has won many elections for the democrats in Nevada by doing just that.

I tremble. Have a nice day, really, have a nice day.

You are hurling epithets at me and charging me with untoward behavior while cloaking yourself in self righteousness.

I have every right to defend myself, am I right?



LOVE
DSB

elegates up and is hiding them in his mansion in DC to keep them from going back and casting their vote for Hillary.
On the other hand, one could say the will of the voters was well met, the voters chosen as delegates for Hillary chose to not go back and vote for her.
Those delegates made a strong statement right there. I believe the Hillary meme was that Sanders supporters wouldn't bother to show up to vote. Kind of blew that theory out of the water don't it.

This is rich... You are suggesting DSB is this bad guy while you are doing everything to antagonize, disrespect, dehumanize, and deligitimize him. It's okay. It confirms everything life has taught me about certain people who hold themselves out to be one thing while being something completely different.



LOVE
DSB

interesting OPs and replies elsewhere since I have said what I wish to say.

NO LOVE TO GIVE YOU
Sincerely, Autumn

That's why I am such an empathetic individual. I am willing to sacrifice to make others feel better, kind of the opposite of a "tough guy"


Have a wonderful day, no snark.



LOVE
DSB

which Hillary delegates didn't show up? You don't. If the people you mentioned couldn't get away on Saturday they probably didn't sign up to be delegates in the first place. This is just a narrative you've crafted for political reasons. You have no clue whatsoever who did or did not show up.

And these are the people least likely to take more time off so it's reasonable to infer it had a disparate impact.

and it's really ridiculous that you would continue to argue this point. Not all Clinton supporters stayed home just some. You have no idea who showed up and who didn't. Your narrative is very transparent.

do you explain their ability to show up to caucus for Hillary back in February in enough numbers to provide Hillary a win?

every Vegas casino held a caucus?

In any case, why volunteer to be a delegate if you're confident you're not going to be able to attend the convention? I was a delegate in Washoe County and it was well addressed by both campaigns at the caucus that you were fully expected to attend if you were a delegate. Alternates were picked just in case someone couldn't show up. And then they followed up with two phone calls and a dozen emails.

It should be mentioned not enough Clinton alternates showed up in Washoe County to cover for the absent Clinton delegates, so not only did her delegates not show up, her alternates failed to show as well.

the relevant part of that statement is that there was no enthusiasm about being a delegate on a Saturday. Nothing else adequately explains the fact that a lot of people volunteered to attend the convention and then failed to show. I believe Occam's Razor is relevant in this case.

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Same thing happened in Iowa and it benefited your candidate. I heard no one complaining back then.

The system of elections in the US is broken. Caucuses doubly so. But you know who I blame on county party elections and prople not coming? The candidates. Both, for the record, had people missing.

I also find it distressing that many of you, and by that I mean posters, have no clue after the initial vote, caucus, what have you have a clue of how Delegates are actually selected.

at her caucus where her county flipped from Bernie to Hillary.

Standard. I need a neck brace for the spin

I, for one, know how they're selected

And while I'm excited that Bernie won (and sad for my wife and close friends who worked so hard for Hillary), IMO the problem really boiled down to a fucked up County Party. Generally in the pocket of the Clintons (and have been for 25 years; I volunteered for HIS campaign here, too), they couldn't have done a worse job communicating if they tried.

And then -- AS USUAL -- they were unprepared for the number of people. Every caucus, every convention, every year. At this point, I literally being a folding chair, two books, and sandwiches, and now bring enough sandwiches to share with the people around me. And also some quality toilet paper.

And then, after failing to get the rules changed on Friday fucking night, the Clinton campaign made the CCDems Fire the credential chairperson when she arrived at 8 am, for "being late." She wasn't supposed to be there until 1, when it started.

The credentials committee then begins a sit down strike and the fucking COPS show up, threatening to trespass everybody. Clinton's lawyers are in the room the whole time, Bernie's are on the way, but it's irrelevant because CLINTON'S own credential committee people join the sit down strike. The person running it has done it for years and is very well liked.

So the lawyers agree to everything, the cops leave, and it's still four hours before the convention even starts. Clusterfuck for everybody, but mostly for the 1000s of regular, plain Democrats who showed up for this mess.

So is that what you meant by "how delegates are selected?"

(And lest you think I'm excluding all criticism of Bernie: his staff and most of his volunteers have little to no idea what they're doing. None. At least Clinton's people could answer our basic questions)

You are aware, you do it. I know, I asked but most folks have no clue.

It is not over until well after the election-caucus is done. You still have the county and state level, that finally select the actual national delegates as you well know.

I find it quite distressing that posters at a political site have issues understanding this

That said. The NV party has lots of issues. For the record, so do our lovely locals in CA party machines carry the name machine for a reason

It would be easier, be more fair (what if it's my person that loses the county next time?), be cheaper, and help our candidates in the long run in multiple ways.

But no, somehow Nevada and Iowa and a few others are special snowflakes that deserve extra special attention, and a metric shit ton of time & money.

In my original reply I was mostly just kvetching about the caucus system. Of course the people here don't understand it; the people who run don't even understand it. Of course, for a Democratic, political website, one would also think that posters would realize that none of this is personal and that our two candidates voted together 94% of the time. The remaining six percent is not the Great Void of Darkness From Which Evil Shall Gather His/Her Might, crushing us all under the boot heels of the most wicked human being to ever live (the other candidate).

Every four years a large part of DU just completely loses its collective mind and formerly intelligent posters become irrational raging morans, to a degree that I don't think I've seen in many real life Democrats.

Step two three and four still need to occur. As to posters. What can you do? Partisans

I guess it shouldn't surprise me but it does.

Sanders won the rest of the state other than Clark County handily.

Im on record numerous times that caucus' are wrong and must go but you're assumption that only Hillary supporters are casino busboys, waitresses, house cleaners etc isn't valid unless you have some kind of evidence to back up that supposition.

That's prima facie evidence that the second caucus had a disparate impact.

Wait... I think those were Bernie supporters. I wonder why the delegates for Bernie got off work yesterday to finish the process and cast their vote???

Oh no that would be so unfair that bosses only gave Bernie delagates time off yesterday

to caucus.

So these workers were caucusing in their workplace, under the gaze of their bosses, who made sure they knew the Hillary supporting Senator Harry Reid pressured them to let them off. To caucus. In the casino. Wink wink, you know who to vote for right?

There were a few of us who said this was problematic but I don't remember you being one of them having trouble with this. Do you think the Hillary voters in those casinos might have felt a wee bit of pressure to vote Hillary?

Do you really think those who were elected delegates under such a scenario would then feel a lot of obligation to take off an unpaid day of work to "support" Hillary?

You either found it objectionable from the start (like nadinbrezinski and pnwmom) or its only objectionable now that it's biting favorite candidates in the ass.

And I'd assert that some percentage of casino workers actually did take the day off and show up at the county caucus.

who managed to show up.

I suspect that the o.p's point will be supported somewhat, but perhaps not to the degree implied in the o.p.

Still we should not be applauding any system that is set up so that certain groups of people have higher hurdles to vote than others.

The OP insinuates Bernie's supporters aren't working stiffs-just idle slackers, so they have the time to show up.

I don't think you can find a link to me condemning Ted Bundy but I can assure you I didn't think he was a good guy.

So typical.

I never condemned the eating of excrement but I condemn the consumption of it because I suspect it tastes like crap.

How about voter suppression in Arizona?

Next you are going to suggest I supported the Turkish genocide of Armenia because you can't find a post of mine condemning it.

lol

Thanks for reminding me...

I made several contemporaneous posts here expressing my dismay with the impediments placed on caucus goers. You can do a search if you want.

P.S. If you believe failing to explicitly condemn an action is tantamount to favoring it there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

You could have been more honorable in defeat. though.

If the weather is nice where you are I would go for a walk. That's usually what I do when I am upset.

It would be illiberal.

"To borrow a colloquialism "he done got whupped." Time to move on."
'Here is the address of the IA Attorney General if you want to contest the results:

Tom Miller
Office of the Attorney General of Iowa
Hoover State Office Building
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines IA 50319"

This one is Irony On Toast:
"I do feel it is bad sportsmanship to begrudge the winner his or her victory, regardless of whether or not you like the victor, and whether or not the victory is a small one or a large one."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511136849#post12


All from one thread. There are many, many, many.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511125141#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511118945
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511128352

If they had been elected as delegates in February and then filled out their convention pledge form -- either online or in person -- starting a month ago, there was no need to attend. Those votes were counted.

The ONLY people who HAD to physically attend were alternates and regular delegates who wanted to go to the state convention.

The Democrats in Las Vegas LOVE those Strip workers. They work their asses off and make this town possible.

The Strip workers even got special, rolling caucuses ON the Strip in February. Their voices were in no way disenfranchised. Delegates had four weeks to register their final vote.

It was not necessary to show up to have your vote counted - the showing up was necessary only if you yourself wanted to be a delegate at the state level. That's how I read it, anyway.

But coming from you its just more Clinton supporter selective outrage.

caucus for those reasons you mention. Plenty couldn't participate in Arizona for other reasons. Plenty may not be able to participate because of computer glitches. Plenty of voter problems all around. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good thing when people can't participate. As far as Nevada goes - no one really knows why some Clinton and some Sanders delegates didn't make it.

That Sanders gained some delegates in Nevada is not Sanders fault - or members of DU fault - it is a messed up system. But I'm still waiting for the Clinton supporters here (and Clinton herself) to be outraged about the mess in Arizona as well as other state primaries, the problems with computer glitches, etc.

The US should be ashamed of it's messy elections. That should be a priority of all candidates.