2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders upset in Nevada; how it happened
Bernie Sanders upset in Nevada; how it happened
By Terri Hendry - Monday April 4th 2816
On February 23rd, Democrats across the Silver State made a choice. They picked Hillary Clinton as the one they thought should be their party's nominee for President. But Bernie Sanders could end up receiving more Nevada delegates than Clinton. How is that possible? Welcome to Nevada's Democratic caucus process. It's one that is controversial as some voters love it, while others hate it.
In a surprising reversal, Senator Bernie Sanders won the support of 55 percent of Nevada's delegates in the second of a three tier system of picking delegates. As for that vote on February 20th, Political Science Professor Fred Lokken exlains adding, "It was the start of a process and in the process apparently things can change the will effect what you thought the winners and losers were going to be.
The switch happened at the County Convention in Clark County. That's the same county credited with giving Clinton the win in the Silver State back in February. Lokken said, "So you go from a 10% win in Clark County to a feeling that she was robbed."
~Snip~
Political Science Professor Fred Lokken said this has happened to Clinton in Nevada before when she was running against Barack Obama. He said, "This happened to Hillary Clinton in 2008. There should have been a firewall this time to make sure it didn't happen again. So, there's a responsibility that falls on her organization."...
http://mynews4.com/news/local/bernie-sanders-upset-in-nevada-how-it-happened
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
boomer55
(592 posts)
dchill
(38,521 posts)(Woody Allen)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)stage of a three stage process suggests several things.
1. They didn't understand that this was a multi-stage process. Highly unlikely. I've done caucuses in two different states, and as soon as you complete the first stage, you are told very explicitly what comes next, and where you have to show up next.
2. The Hillary Clinton supporters weren't all that enthusiastic. My best guess. Given that in some of the casinos time off was arranged so that employees could caucus, and it was made exquisitely clear who they were supposed to caucus for, I strongly suspect that some noticeable percentage of "Hillary" delegates weren't fully committed to her. In a related note, a DUer reported from the Alaska caucus that they had a hard time getting one of the Hillary supporters at their caucus to be an actual Hillary delegate. Which I find very sad. When I've caucused I've been highly enthusiastic for my candidate, and always wanted to be a delegate to the next level. That some caucuses had trouble persuading Hillary caucusers become Hillary delegates strikes me as genuinely sad. But more importantly, a strong indicator of her level of support.
3. Maybe there was some sort of fraud happening in the first place. I don't really like going there, because I am totally not a conspiracy theorist ever, so I don't like this choice at all.
4. Some of them honestly changed their minds, and decided that Bernie was the better choice, and since they couldn't really change their affiliation, once they'd been elected as pledged delegates, decided to stay home. I suspect that this is what happened with some noticeable percentage of the delegates who didn't show up.
As strong a Bernie supporter as I am, I find the fall-off of Hillary delegates to be genuinely sad.
