2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm seeing Bernie folks claiming the causus was stolen by Clinton and Clinton folks saying Bernie was trying to steal it.  What actually happened?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Trump won it, clearly......

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump won it, clearly......

Sadly, metaphorically, there is truth in that statement.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sadly, metaphorically, there is truth in that statement.

And it will get worse before it gets better. This infighting is exactly why I said months ago that Sanders should drop out. I warned you guys that this would happen.

[Fez]

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm seeing Bernie folks claiming the causus was stolen by Clinton and Clinton folks saying Bernie was trying to steal it.  What actually happened?

The state convention finally happened on Saturday, with all the delegates elected at the caucuses back in February finally attending. Clinton had won more caucuses, so Clinton had more delegates. Therefore, her delegates had the majority and passed the convention rules packages, including allocating the state's delegates to the national convention proportionally in favor of Clinton.

The Sanders delegates threw a really bad temper tantrum. I think they believed that because they had won a majority of the alternate delegates (elected at county conventions last month, when not enough of Clinton's delegates showed up) they should've had the majority at the state convention. But it was always clearly stated that those were only alternate delegates, in case the delegates elected at the caucuses didn't show up. But the caucus delegates did show up this time, so Clinton had a majority. 

Eventually the convention agreed to also seat the alternate delegates, to try to appease the Sanders folks. But the majority Sanders had among the alternate delegates was smaller then the majority Clinton had among the caucus delegates, so Clinton still had the majority anyway.

The Sanders delegates threw another temper tantrum.

[TrackerNeil]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it will get worse before it gets better. This infighting is exactly why I said months ago that Sanders should drop out. I warned you guys that this would happen.

As I have said, I doubt most Americans even know this is going on, and most of those who do will likely have forgotten it come November. The conspiracy-minded will never forget, of course, but then those people believe all manner of things that don't matter in elections.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm seeing Bernie folks claiming the causus was stolen by Clinton and Clinton folks saying Bernie was trying to steal it.  What actually happened?

More fuel for the Sanders CT team.

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm seeing Bernie folks claiming the causus was stolen by Clinton and Clinton folks saying Bernie was trying to steal it.  What actually happened?

Honestly, there are some Sanders folks who've been claiming this since last October, so this is just the most recent chapter in a long series of novels.

[Maester Drew]

Based on the Nevada Convention,  the DNC at Philly could wind up being as chaotic as the 68 Convention in Chicago... that's a really scary thought 

 

*If it is in bad taste to respond to posters from the previous thread please let me know and I'll edit that portion out.

@Roose Boltons Pet Leech

Quote

Reading Maester Drew's posts... it's like 2000 never happened.

If you don't like Hillary, the correct place to vote against her is in the primary. But here's the thing - she won the primary via that simple "getting more votes" thing called democracy. 

In the general, your choice is Hillary vs Donald, and if you aren't voting for Hillary, you're making it more likely Donald will be the next US President. If you think Donald and Hillary are equally bad - fine. If not, you are helping the Greater Evil because you are so obsessed with spiting the demonstrably Lesser Evil.

Well to be fair, I was five during that election, lol. Seriously though, 2016 is not 2000. Nader formally ran as a candidate in the General, but Sanders has made it clear that if he's not nominated, he won't run in the General.

Also, it was less Nader's fault that Gore lost in Florida and more the Supreme Court's when they halted the recount. I'll also like to add, that the elections of 1992 and 1996 would have been more apt comparisons. Given that Bill Clinton won those races (granted, via a plurality) despite a strong third party candidate. Maybe the same will happen for his wife.

As I said before, no election is truly 'either/or." There are other choices beyond the Democrats and Republicans for the voter, and to pretend otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous. Now, you seem to conflate the popular vote with the electoral vote. Well, they ain't the same thing. The popular doesn't matter (case in point, Gore won the popular but still lost in 2000). It's the electoral vote that decides the election.

Why am I saying this? Because I reside in a safe state for the Republicans (at the very least for this election). So no matter how I voted, Texas would still give its 38 electoral votes to the Republican nominee. It'd be the same for any resident living in a safe state. In effect, there is simply no way I could make Hillary lose. Now, if I were to live in Ohio, for example, then yeah... you'd have an argument about me 'spoiling' the election for her. 

 

@TrackerNeil

Quote

I know, right? How many times back then did I hear that there was no appreciable difference between Gore and Bush? Looking back at Iraq, Katrina, waterboarding, Abu-Graib, the people who said that look like utter fools. And now they've surfaced again. Ugh.

Are you saying the US would have been a Utopia under Gore, like Family Guy paints it as? Do you have evidence for this, because I think this would be mere speculation. It's like asking, "What if the Confederates had won?"

Moving on, I'm trying to wrap my head around this: Does Hillary have a good chance at winning?  If yes, then what does it matter how people vote in November? If no, make appeals to discontented voters in the swing states that they must vote for Hillary for the sake of the US. Heck, Hillary should be doing a whole lot more to woo over Sanders supporters, if she doesn't... it could prove disastrous.

[TrackerNeil]

29 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

 

@TrackerNeil

Are you saying the US would have been a Utopia under Gore, like Family Guy paints it as? Do you have evidence for this, because I think this would be mere speculation. It's like asking, "What if the Confederates had won?"

Yes, I am saying that. If Gore had been president, the United States would have entered an era in which gold was common as water, children were all born with perfect health and gossamer wings, and we'd never again have known misfortune. 

[Maester Drew]

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Yes, I am saying that. If Gore had been president, the United States would have entered an era in which gold was common as water, children were all born with perfect health and gossamer wings, and we'd never again have known misfortune. 

I do wish the forum had a 'liking' system, because I love the sarcasm! 

 

Back on topic, a month ago I thought the RNC would be the one that'd be chaos personified, but it's more and more likely it'll be the DNC.

Divided political parties are dangerous, because they tend to lose by a lot. The Republicans were split between Taft and Roosevelt in 1912, and the Republicans lost (only receiving 8 electoral votes). The same could happen for the Democrats  in this election. So, the possibility that I'll stand behind Hillary has increased given those prospects.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hum, strange title. I used to think what happens in Nevada, stays in Nevada.

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I do wish the forum had a 'liking' system, because I love the sarcasm! 

Back on topic, a month ago I thought the RNC would be the one that'd be chaos personified, but it's more and more likely it'll be the DNC.

Divided political parties are dangerous, because they tend to lose by a lot. The Republicans were split between Taft and Roosevelt in 1912, and the Republicans lost (only receiving 8 electoral votes). The same could happen in this election. So, the possibility that I'll stand behind Hillary has increased given those prospects.

The RNC isn't divided?

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

The RNC isn't divided?

Oops! I meant for the Democrats in 2016  I'll fix my post.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The RNC isn't divided?

I think the Democrats are more divided than the Republicans at this exact moment in time. And it's well known that the Republicans are better at getting in line behind their candidate. They always ride single file to hide their numbers.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I imagine Trump should be able to unify the Democratic party behind Clinton. Maybe not as much as Cruz would, but Trump will suffice.

[Maithanet]

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

I imagine Trump should be able to unify the Democratic party behind Clinton. Maybe not as much as Cruz would, but Trump will suffice.

A lot of Sanders supporters have no patience for the argument that "Clinton is ahead, and therefore we should all get behind her."  However, once the voting is over, the argument changes to "Everybody voted, and Clinton got more votes."  I suspect that argument will be much more convincing for most Sanders people. 

Combine that with Sanders himself supporting Clinton and fear of Trump, and I think that this will be mostly forgotten by August, let alone November.  There might be a few die hard Sanders people who cannot stomach Clinton, but I think their importance is overstated.  Plenty of my friends are Sanders supporters (some of them quite fervently so), and I have always been able to get them to acknowledge that Clinton is an acceptable fallback choice. 

[Mexal]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

A lot of Sanders supporters have no patience for the argument that "Clinton is ahead, and therefore we should all get behind her."  However, once the voting is over, the argument changes to "Everybody voted, and Clinton got more votes."  I suspect that argument will be much more convincing for most Sanders people. 

Combine that with Sanders himself supporting Clinton and fear of Trump, and I think that this will be mostly forgotten by August, let alone November.  There might be a few die hard Sanders people who cannot stomach Clinton, but I think their importance is overstated.  Plenty of my friends are Sanders supporters (some of them quite fervently so), and I have always been able to get them to acknowledge that Clinton is an acceptable fallback choice. 

I was thinking the same thing. I don't see any reason why the democrats won't get behind Clinton after she officially wins, especially if Sanders endorses her. My only concern is whether Sanders voters, especially the hardcore ones, actually vote in the November election or decide to do something like write in Sanders name knowing it could help Trump win the election.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

They don't have to, at least not now. It's 6 months to the general election, right? For now they can be mad and angry, and campaign for Sanders and push his message forward. Let them. If the primary is officially over, they will fall in line behind Clinton. I can't imagine a single Sanders supporter from the younger generation want to see President Trump. But the DNC would be well advised to let the primaries simply play out. Calling Bernie to quit does not look like the best way to mend fences. 

A message like, the primaries are part of the Democratic process and we respect, that Senator Sanders thinks he still has a way to the nomination, looks much better than: Senator Sanders is anything but defeated, enough with this madness in the name of the DNC. It's time to unite behind Hillary or you are responsible for a President Trump. 

And somehow a lot of Clinton supporters on this board tend to go for the second message. If I was a Sanders supporter, I would probably tell any lecturing Clinton supporters to take the f-train (I love that expression, see politics can teach you new expressions), too. And in all fairness, Clinton does not have the needed number of delegates yet. Thus she is not the nominee as of now. Granted she will probably collect the needed number of delegates, but for now calling Bernie supporters to quit will be as effective as screaming at wall. Actually it's probably worse. It only plays into the narrative that DNC is seeking to secure the status quo and give another sell out the nomination.

[TrackerNeil]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the Democrats are more divided than the Republicans at this exact moment in time. And it's well known that the Republicans are better at getting in line behind their candidate. 

They're also known for marching that line right off a cliff, as they did with Bush and Iraq. Let's hope they are equally disciplined in 2016.