He and his campaign played by the rules -- just like Hillary did in Iowa, Nevada the day of the caucus, and Massachusetts to name a few.

But the fact that you are worried about this says a lot. It says you are worried.

The Superdelegates are playing by the rules as well.

He's been very frank about being aggressive in flipping them. Playing by the rules. BTW, I'm not complaining either.

Seems to me you are the complainer.

Don't think so. Projection is a fascinating behavior.

Because that is what you said.

No it isn't ... but I'm used to people like you putting words in my mouth by reading what you want to read, not what was actually written.

"Then you need to quit crying about how Superdelegates don't vote with the "will of the people""

He said no, then you doubled down. I was just wondering if you had a link to where he was. Now you are saying you didn't say that?

After KPH asked "who's crying" ... I replied

Who's crying? It's been all over here at DU in thread after thread by Sanders supporters

To have anyone actually believe bullshit like that, it has to be something not already comprehensively refuted in multiple places.

Hillary's delegates not bothering to show up is Princess Weathervane's problem, not Bernie's.

That seems to be ok with Sanders supporters on a selective basis, when it benefits Sanders.

For the record, I prefer direct voting (in both primaries and the GE) for that exact reason: it best reflects the will of the people. I'm not okay with what seems to have happened in Nevada. That's not democracy.

But nevertheless, Hillary's people were the ones to fuck up, and describing what happened as Bernie "sealing" anything is a flat-out lie.

Sanders cheerleaders cry about how Superdelegates are going against the "will of the voters" in their home states when they've come out in support of Clinton, if their state voted for Sanders.

Here, changing the number of delegates from what the percentage was in the caucuses also goes against the "will of the voters".

But you Sanders cheerleaders feel that it's ok in Nevada because "those are the rules". Well, the Superdelegates can vote for whichever candidate they choose, because those are the rules.

You can't pick and choose which rules you're in favor of. Well, you can .. but that is called hypocrisy.

When it was pointed out that that's a lie, you pivoted onto a broad-brush assumption that Sanders supporters are okay with what happened in Nevada.

Now, instead of FUCKING READING WHAT I WROTE, you double down with the same broad-brush horseshit To wit:

but it's quite clear that the Sanders supporters here at DU were quite pleased with it. And yes, I'm speaking in a broad brush. I was then, I am still now. You won't be getting a retraction any time soon, because what I stated in the general sense is still quite true.

You lived down to them.

Bye, now...

They never seem to be able to stoop low enough.

Buh bye.

We aren't going to hold them back lol?

they did not show. Probably because they either changed their minds when the understood what a clusterfuck a Clinton presidency would be, or because they had already been paid.

Here's the Nevada delegate selection plan:
https://nvdems.3cdn.net/728ffa1321e41a0452_9ym6idkbz.pdf

The delegates in later steps are not bound by the results of the first step (the "non-binding presidential preference caucus&quot . The rules provide for a specific time period during the second and third steps in the multi-tier caucus process for delegates to realign with a different candidate.

So this means that the delegate counts could change (and they did) during the April 2nd county conventions and they could also do so during the June 4th and 5th state convention.

Clearly a system by which the delegate counts can change during later steps is an intentional feature designed into the Nevada caucus system. And obviously, therefore, each candidate should continue to make their case in Nevada throughout the multi-tier process. Doing so is not "stealing" delegates, it is persuading them, as per the design of the system, that you are the best candidate. This system would seem to give Nevada (and other states that use a similar process) more influence than if they had a single binding step like Missouri does (and most states do).

They are only electing delegates to fill the positions allotted to a candidate.

Each presidential candidate also have the right to approve the delegates allotted to them that will go to the National Convention.


When I go to our state convention as a state delegate I attend a district caucus meeting in which we decide the national delegates. I can only vote for delegates of either Clinton or for Sanders. We have to declare which ballot and only delegates of one candidate are on the ballot.

After district level delegates are elected at the state convention they all meet as a whole to elect the at-large delegates.

Throughout that process the number of delegates each candidate won during the primary or caucus election does not change after that.

Are you talking about the process in Indiana?

They were replaced with the delegates who showed up, Bernie's delegates. If you can't be bothered to come back to vote you don't count. As delegates they knew they had to return. T hey must have had better things to do. That's how it works

But so many Sanders cheerleaders feel that Superdelegates should have to vote the way their state did in the primary. It seems that they only like the rules that benefit Sanders.

as Hilary's supporters have been saying it is Bernie's delegates would have stayed home and Hillary would have won them. Hilary's delegates didn't bother to show up.

to do with what happened in Nevada? Nothing, Hillary's delegates didn't bother to show up.

Sanders cheerleaders don't like the rules about Superdelegates, but they love the rules about Nevada.

You can't have it both ways.

Like I said, Sanders cheerleaders only like the rules that benefit Sanders ... it's called hypocrisy.

The rules don't allow it.

Not sure where you're getting your information from - maybe you can post a link because the Nevada official delegate selection plan says different:

http://nvdems.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/NSDP_DelegateSelectionPlan_2016.pdf

My corrected understanding is that the allocation of the 23 district-level delegates is based on the original caucus results and won't change. But the allocation of the 7 at-large delegates and the 5 PLEO delegates occurs at the state convention and will change. So Bernie will pick up 2 delegates and the total count will be 18 for Hillary and 17 for Bernie.

In the specific case of Missouri the number of national delegates for each candidate is already fixed due to it having a binding primary. So the fact that more Bernie delegates than Hillary delegates showed up at one of the middle tiers in the multi-tier process doesn't have the effect of flipping Missouri from Hillary to Bernie. There hasn't been and can't be any flipping of Missouri.

On the other hand, there are other states where the number of final national delegates *do* depend on how many delegates for each candidate show up at each caucus tier. I believe that Washington State is one example.

The larger point is that there is some variation in the process from state to state and people should refrain from claiming how the caucus/primary process works unless they look into each state specifically.

Under the Missouri Delegate Selection plan, the results of the primary are binding and can not be changes. See rule 6A of the Delegate Selection plan https://drive.google.com/a/chriskoster.com/file/d/0Bw8qd8A8ZSVLY0RGWFNtMlJkdXc/view?pref=2&pli=1 In addition each Candidate has approval rights over their delegates under rule 5 of the Delegation Selection Plan. In Texas, I have been asked to help vet the delegates to the national convention for my Senate district for the Clinton campaign. The campaign takes this vetting process seriously.

I am not sure what the Sanders people think that they are doing. The primary is binding and they can not change the results fo the primary under Missouri Democratic party rules.

BTW, the Nevada delegate selection plan is also clear and the Sanders people will not be able to steal Nevada http://nvdems.3cdn.net/728ffa1321e41a0452_9ym6idkbz.pdf

Both the second and third tiers specifically allow for delegates to switch from one candidate to another (to realign). Here are those rules for the second tier:

The reallocation provision you cite are inconsistent with rule I found. Conflicts like this will be resolved by the credentials committee

The provisions I cited are the specific and detailed steps for each tier. Clearly those steps have to be followed, including the realignment period. It would make no sense to not do the realignment step - it is clear and specific in the rules.

The paragraph you cited is ambiguous but can be interpreted so as to not conflict with the specific steps laid out for each tier. That interpretation would be that that paragraph requires the allocation in each tier to reflect the expressed preference of the participants in that tier. To interpret it as saying that all allocations have to reflect the preferences of the first tier would make the specific steps for the second and third tiers completely inoperable.

So I don't think there will be any dispute about this - the steps laid out in detail for each tier will be followed and those steps include the choice by each participant in each tier to realign to a different candidate at their sole discretion.

Of the 35 national pledged delegates, 23 of them (the district-level delegates) are apportioned based on the original caucus votes. That's what the paragraph cited by Gothmog is saying. So those delegates came out 13 for Hillary and 10 for Bernie based on the original caucus results and will not change.

The other 12 delegates (7 at-large delegates and 5 PLEO delegates) are apportined at the state convention and will be affected by the increase in Bernie numbers. So the 7 at-large delegates will now be Bernie 4 to Hillary 3 instead of Bernie 3 to Hillary 4. And the PLEO delegates will not be Bernie 3 to Hillary 2 instead of Bernie 2 to Hillary 3.

This is interesting http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/

They will elect a bunch of delegates that starts out large and reduces at each level until the last stage (state convention) where they elect the actual national delegates.

In the case of Nevada, they elected delegates from their respective precincts. Each precinct could have 1 or more delegates elected.

Those delegates go to the next step to elect delegates that represent them at the next level.

It continues until they elect delegates from the congressional district based on caucus voters from the first level.

The original voters at the first stage don't all show up. Only the delegates elected from the previous stage get to vote.

Did you see that delegates in the second and third caucus steps have the option of realigning with a different candidate?

Or if you weren't interested in discussing that question that is okay too - just not sure whether your post was meant to refute mine, agree with it, or to just add other information.

First of all

change during the multi-tier caucus. They will certify the numbers after all the caucuses have been held. Primaries have fixed numbers. Caucuses do not. Nice try though.

I was born in, lived in, voted in Missouri my whole life. I think I know.
I'd love it if Bernie got more delegates here, but it won't happen.

In the OP I linked to and excerpted from the official Missouri Delegate Selection Plan. Missouri bases the number of delegates to the national convention on the results of the primary:

The primary is the "first determining step" in the delegate selection process.

The multiple steps (after the primary vote) are only about which delegates within each candidate's camp move up from tier to tier and become the national delegates. But the number of delegates for each candidate is already fixed based on the binding primary vote results, as per the provision that I excerpted before:

be determined until that state holds its Democratic Party state convention. It's not very difficult to estimate the number each candidate will get, since the rules require that they be proportional to primary or caucus results, but the actual delegate number come from the congressional distict conventions for almost all delegates. A few in each state are at large delegates, allocated according to caucus or primary votes as well.

This is a matter of much concern and deliberation at each convention level, and making the delegate count as proportional as possible, even with rounding that is necessary, is taken very seriously by the Democratic Party organization in each state.

At this point, I don't believe any state conventions have yet been held. Until they are, all delegate counts are only estimates. Those estimates will be fairly accurate and won't change dramatically in any state, but there will be shifts of a delegate or two by the end of the state conventions, where the actual delegates are selected.

Missouri has a binding primary, unlike some other states.

Not sure where you got your information. Maybe it's wrong or maybe you misinterpreted it (one or the other). Do you have a link?

In 1992 in Michigan, The Clinton and Briwn delegates were allocated proportionally by result. It was left to congressional district conventions to decide WHO will represent the candidates at the national convention and they were ratified at the state convention.

Missouri was basicly tied.they tied the pledged delegates.

If you complam about that it's ridculous bernie won wisconsin and clinton only won 1 county and bernie only gets 10 more delegates
from wisconsin she did.

Read the plan. It is on the state party's website.

From the discussion in this and another thread I have a different understanding of the rules in Nevada and Washington than I started with.

Originally I thought that the allocation between candidates could change for all pledged delegates during the later convention steps.

Now my understanding is that the district-level delegates (the largest group) is based only on the results of the original caucus vote. And that only the PLEO and at-large delegates are allocated later and potentially affected by changes in the proportion of delegates in the later steps. Again, that's for Nevada and Washington, which use very similar language in their respective delegate selection plans.

After reviewing Missouri one more time I still believe that all of its delegates (district-level, PLEO, and at-large) are allocated based on the original binding primary results.

So for these three states here are the numbers that can change due to shifts in the relative strength of preference in the later steps:

Missouri: 0 out of the total 71 can change in later stages
Nevada: 12 out of the total 35 can change in later stages
Washington: 34 out of the total 101 can change in later stages

Nevada has completed the second of three tiers and as a result it appears the 12 delegates will shift from 7 to 5 in favor of Hillary and become 7 to 5 in favor of Bernie. The overall total would shift from 20 to 15 in favor of Hillary and become 18 to 17 in favor of Hillary.

Washington has had only the first of three tiers so it's not known yet whether any of Washington's 34 delegates will change sides.

Democratic Socialism, on the other hand, is still running.

And some of us are working on defeating undemocratic fascism. Not sure from your comment whether you are or not.

It doesn't seem very democratic but it also doesn't seem very important. Her lead is 200+ delegates. The odds of these minutiae effecting the outcome are astronomical.