The superdelegates have seen all of Bernie's campaign stunts, and my guess is that he's going to end up losing more supers than he gained with his Nevada tricks.

For whatever reason, Bernie had nothing to do with that.

And if Hillary wants to speak out on election shenanigans, that would just be great...as we have been waiting for YEARS!

I don't think the Sander's campaign wants to frame the issue that way....but carry on....

Even more so if you complain about super delegates being undemcratic....

to show up on Saturday. Some of the people elected to "show up for Clinton" did not.

That reality is suddenly cringe-worthy.

Look, caucuses suck. We don't know how much the shitty caucus system affected the vote in February, with people not showing up then for whatever reason. Which means it's rather odd to declare that "showing up" sacrosanct, and this "showing up" utterly unimportant.

Furthermore, the competent, experienced, "ready on day 1" candidate should have enough organization to ensure her delegates actually show up when the caucus system requires them to show up. Especially when you're talking about the people who volunteered and got elected to do so - these aren't 'run of the mill' supporters.

Maybe the credentials committee felt that some of the Clinton delegates weren't legally voted in. Maybe they felt she didn't really win the popular vote. I don't know. It's not clear to me from reading articles on it what their decision was based on, but the fact that the two Clinton representatives on the committee agreed and helped prevent the chairperson from being arrested suggests to me that the decision was legitimate.

I also have heard, though I haven't seen the source, that Bernie made sure to have lots of alternate delegates there because his people had heard that their delegates were misinformed about time or place of the meeting, and they wanted to be sure that they were represented fairly.

The bloom is off the rose.

And just like the first 'level' of caucuses, if you don't show up, you don't get to vote.

And some of those elected to "show up for Clinton" did not.

...we'll see how much you like the process when they regroup for the convention in May

a bad process when it benefits the candidate I prefer.

I'm not.

Caucuses are an anachronism that needs to be ended. Even when Sanders wins them.

So, you still think the election fraud in AZ was fake?

is now a "campaign stunt?"

Same thing happened in my county in Texas. Hillary won my county hands down, yet barely any of her supporters bothered to show up for the county convention. Sanders got many more delegates to the state convention as a result. All because we took the time to show up.

the superdelegates, are going to fix the undemocratic caucus process by blaming the Bernie camp for Hillary delegates not showing up, and undemocratically nullifying delegates of the side that did bother to show up?

Yeah, long live ImwithHer-ocracy.

It should all be done by primaries, and the delegates should all be pledged, and they should reflect the will of the electorate.

Unfortunately, that's not the system we have. Seems that one of the undemocratic aspects -- caucuses -- are benefiting Bernie this time, while the other -- supers -- are benefiting Hillary.

you seem to tolerate the one that benefits Hillary, and are outraged by the one that benefited Bernie.

I await your essay condemning both superdelegates and caucuses. The essay where you dispassionately condemn both practices while either calling both side cheaters or neither side cheaters for having an advantage under them.

then why did the whole credentials committee, including the 2 Clinton representatives, rule in his favor and stand together when the police came?

And do you think it's appropriate to call the police to have the chairperson of the credentials committee removed from the premises?

They contributed to her loss in the 2008 primaries to POTUS Obama.

Hillary Clinton reminds me of Richard Nixon.

...it's meta, so it isn't the basis for a thread, but it is an interesting and disturbing prevarication from the 'truth-telling' campaign.

We've all seen Hillary threads locked for what was determined to be false info.

Because, revolution.

They may want to wait for the campaign to put out a statement.

Here are the outlets that come up on my searches: KTNV (local TV station), Las Vegas Sun, heavy.com, reddit, washington examiner, and a few blogs. No MSM coverage whatsoever. So I guess it didn't really happen.

...because the Caucuses aren't over. Now we move on to the State Convention.

no results for any state elections would be reported until after the state conventions.

when in fact they will not be determine until after teh final state convention in May
but don let that stop yall.

btw... it looks like if the hoodoo holds, Bern may pick 2 delegates at the most.

And since apparently the Sanders campaign is organized enough to get its delegates to actually show up, its not likely that this situation will reverse.

It's so hard for me to believe that I feel that we must be misunderstanding something about the process. Why on earth would someone go through the trouble of running to be a delegate for a presidential candidate and then just not show up? I think that the descriptions of how and why this happened must be missing something important.

"The Clinton campaign didn’t like the direction that the credentials committee was going, so they tried to have the Chairperson of the credentials committee, Christine Kramer, removed, and even called the police to have her arrested for trespassing."

that's just my interpretation, based on the story in the link in the OP, in part based on the fact that the whole credentials committee, even the Clinton representatives, stood with her to prevent her arrest.

I've heard a lot on this thread about caucuses being an anti-democratic process.

I partially agree with that. I partially agree with it because in a sense they disenfranchise those who don't have the time to attend them, and I would think that that would disproportionately affect the poor.

But on the other hand, outright voter suppression is much more difficult to practice in a caucus, compared to a primary, especially a primary where the votes are counted on electronic machines with no paper trail. And we're seeing a lot of voter suppression this primary season. I strongly believe that Bernie is doing so much better in the caucuses than the primaries, not only because his supporters are more enthusiastic, but because voter suppression is almost impossible. Just my opinion.

The votes of superdelegates are a distinctly undemocratic means of selecting nominees. The vote of one superdelegate is the equivalent of the vote of hundreds or thousands of ordinary people, and many of them don't even hold an elected office.

There are problems with caucuses. But they have certain rules, and one of the rules is that if you want to vote you have to show up. That's a universal rule that applies to primaries as well, the difference being that caucuses have layers of voting that are somewhat more complex than that of primaries.

Have you ever heard of a Bernie supporter complaining that he lost an election because some of his supporters didn't show up to vote? I haven't. But when voting lines are a half mile long and voters with jobs that they need and could lose have to wait in line for hours in order to vote, that's an affront to democracy. And when Democratic voters come to the polls to vote and find out that their registration has been purged, so they can't vote, that's an affront to democracy.

Same thing with superdelegates. When one person has the equivalent of thousands of votes of ordinary people, that's an affront to democracy, though in my opinion, not as bad as those mentioned in the above paragraph.

Why does there need to be another vote? That second vote changed the will of the people.

I'm not blaming Bernie, them the rules. But the rules are really really stupid.

I think both this and super delegates are wrong.