The Nevada Democratic Convention
Nevada has a three part system for selecting delegates. The first part that was covered on TV was won by Clinton. The second part, the county caucuses, that was covered by local newspapers in Nevada, was won by Sanders. The state convention that chooses the actual delegates was not either fair or transparent as Sanders delegates were ‘purged’ without any appeal process or explanation. This left the Sanders supporters very unhappy as it occurs following the fight over representation of the candidates on the committees for the national convention.
When they think they are being cheated, people get angry and strike out. Clinton supporters are not helping their candidate by screwing around like this. I know Obama did the same thing to them in 2008, but Clinton doesn’t need even the hint of corruption in the process.
20 comments
The purge has the scent of a Wasserman-schultz all over it. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the rabble-grousers were there for the sole purpose of creating dissent within the Democratic party. Nor do I believe that Bernie (or Hilary) has any control over these agents.
The 2008 Obama primary campaign was an example of Chicago politics and the Clinton people are using the same playbook. They are acting like Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President – resorting to all kinds of dirty tricks and sleazy practices to win an election than they were going to win anyway.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was ‘good people’ in the Florida Legislature. I have several contacts with her over various issues because she was on the right committees for the issues and my local reps were so useless. Since going to Washington she has lost her way and forgotten her principles.
The denial of delegate credentials without any recourse was a dubious move, but the real uproar was about the shady adoption of new, hastily written “temporary rules” to govern the convention, which among other things essentially gave the chairwoman dictatorial power over the proceedings and outcomes. Everything else followed from that. Hmm, emergency temporary rules — remind you of anything?
As for the consequent media circus — can you say “tissue of lies” boys and girls? How about “agitprop”? THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE, other than angry words and the violence done to democratic procedure by Democrat functionaries. No chairs were thrown, much less punches or even shoving. No stages were rushed — would have been a neat trick, since metal barriers and a cordon of armed police kept attendees at least twenty feet away from it. No arrests were made, no injuries treated aside from one possible fainting/heart incident. In other words, just about everything you may have heard in the media or from the Clinton machine was made up from whole cloth. And they’re still calling for an apology for things that never happened.
Oh yes, there was the fact of some mild slogans chalked around the Democratic local office and some nasty voicemails (of unknown provenance) sent to chairwoman Roberta Lange — the worst of which said things like “you deserve to be hung”, which while unplesant and out of order, is not actually a threat. Personally, after observing the chairwoman’s highhanded and provocative behaviour I think she’s lucky we no longer practice the ancient political custom of tarring and feathering.
One other thing. It seems that although food and water were hard to come by during the day-long event, attendees were provided with a couple of paid bars. Not sure that indicates the best of event planning.
P.S.
I may have been wrong about the complete lack of violence. I’ve recently come across a couple of reports of shoving or manhandling. Both of female Sanders delegates by angry Clinton supporters.
One of the biggest problems with political processes is the lack of formal rules at any stage. No one has ever produced anything that even pretends to be a rule book.
This is the same thing that the Obama campaign did in 2008, and I think Clinton is probably using many of the Obama workers this year.
I was disenfranchised in the primary campaign by Obama’s tactics and refused to vote for him in either election. I won’t be voting for Clinton and would remove the people spreading the agitprop from my blogroll… except I already removed them when they did the same thing for Obama. I don’t forgive, and I don’t forget.
Oh but they did have formal rules, Bryan. The well established rules they used in the first two rounds of the Nevada caucus. The ones that wound up flipping Nevada for Sanders in the second round. That couldn’t be allowed to stand. Sure, there were only a couple or three delegates at stake, but I guess they wanted to make an example, you know?
Did I mention that the new rules grant lifetime appointments to the Nevada Central Committee members (previously they had to stand for election every two years)? That’s another reason there was some resistance.
Also, I hate to say it but about your blogroll… I just picked one at random (Tbogg) to demonstrate the reach of this propaganda effort:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/nixons-playbook-how-the-philly-protests-could-hand-donald-trump-the-law-and-order-vote-he-needs/
quote: “brouhaha at the Nevada Democratic convention devolved into a screaming match that led to shoving, pushing and chair-throwing… out of that came death threats against Nevada Democratic Party head Roberta Lange.
Again, this stuff just isn’t factual. Period, full stop. No one has to take my word for it — there’s plenty of video of the event, photos, audio, and the personal accounts of actual delegates who were there. I’ve been sorting through this stuff constantly for the last couple of days. Here’s a rundown on how this meme seems to have got rolling:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/18/the-faux-fracas-in-nevada-how-a-reporters-pack-of-lies-ran-riot-in-the-fact-averse-media/
For whatever reasons, a lot of people who like to think of themselves as progressive, pragmatic, realistic, etc., are blindly swallowing and regurgitating the crap the media and the Dem leadership are shoveling. It’s sad. And of course it isn’t limited to this one incident.
TBogg is literally a comedian best known for misogyny and Basset hounds. He is not a serious commentator about anything, but thanks for reminding me because he goes bye-bye because he trashed Clinton in 2008 and covered for the misdeeds of the Obama campaign.
Normally they adopt new rules at the beginning of every cycle. It sounds like empire building on behalf of someone in the current party leadership.
The Democratic Party needs a uniform system of choosing candidates for the nomination for President instead of this patchwork of non-systems.
Actually, in Nevada the Clintonistas were firmly in charge in 2008, and the “temporary” rules in place this year were the 2008 rules. Most of the Obama delegates at the 2008 convention were back at the convention as Sanders delegates in 2016, like this lady, a friend of mine who was a Bernie delegate there and has talked about her personal experiences as a Bernie delegate there.
The big difference is that Obama and Rahm were from the Chicago school. They knew how to meet fire with fire and managed to exploit the rules to come out with more delegates at the end than they started with. The Sandernistas by contrast got rolled.
I just posted something on my own blog on this, but one thing I will note is that the party “leader” there did not do a lot of leading. Leadership is not about saying “I won, so I rule.” Leadership when you’re all on the same team (or supposed to be) means that when you do win, you then are gracious enough to treat the other side considerately and fairly and bring them into the project in a meaningful way. Treating the Sanders supporters as if they have cooties and whining that they aren’t properly submissive once defeated isn’t leadership, it’s just stupidity.
Oh, TBogg is a P.E. teacher and coach in real life. Not exactly a profession that qualifies you for close examination of facts. The only fine writing he has ever done is about his daughter Casey. Since then, well.
” the “temporary” rules in place this year were the 2008 rules.”
Nope. Only during the first two caucus tiers. Two weeks before the third tier (state convention) the leadership got together and rewrote the rules. That’s the point.
In additon, the date of the state convention, originally scheduled for June, was changed to May 14 which happens to be graduation day at the local colleges, so it’s likely that some of Bernie’s delegates were busy graduating rather than voting.
“The big difference is that Obama and Rahm were from the Chicago school. They knew how to meet fire with fire and managed to exploit the rules to come out with more delegates at the end than they started with. The Sandernistas by contrast got rolled.”
The Sanders contingent weren’t asleep at the switch. The rules switch was challenged in court the day before the convention, but the judge declined to issue a ruling. Then, following procedure they managed to obtain petition signatures from 20% of the delegates to force a reconsideration of the new rules. The petitions were submitted, but Lange and her cronies buried them without a vote. Basically, once the rewritten rules were in place going into the convention (temporary rules), the chair had arbitrary power.
To nail it down, the voice vote to apply the new rules as permanent was taken early, before the 10am registration deadline while many delegates weren’t yet inside the hall. And under the new rules, voice votes were decided by the chair and could not be challenged without the chair’s approval. All this BS is why there was so much anger, not just losing a couple of national delegates.
Except the “rewritten” rules are basically the 2008 rules. There are no significant changes between the 2008 and 2016 rules. All of the things that Sanders delegates find objectionable in the 2016 rules were there in the 2008 rules too.
Which does not change the point that the Clintonistas rolled the Sandernistas when they didn’t need to do so given they had more delegates show up at the convention. Their behavior reminded me of Putin in Putin’s last election. Putin would have won that election fair and square if he’d run a clean race. But because he’s Putin, he rigged the vote anyhow. Just because that’s how he rolls.
Thing is, that’s not supposed to be what the Democratic Party stands for. It would not have hurt the party chair to be gracious and conciliatory in victory. It would not have hurt her to give a few meaningless concessions like, e.g., hold a roll call vote for one of those voice votes after hearing objections that the nays were louder than the ayes so how could she call it for the ayes. But it was all about “I won, you lost, so there.” then accusing the losing side of having cooties. Which is *not* how you build a team that’s going to win against the giant talking outrage carrot…
“Except the “rewritten” rules are basically the 2008 rules.”
If that was true, then why the need to modify them before the state convention? That wasn’t done for the first two tiers, right? Your assertion isn’t very plausible.
“Which does not change the point that the Clintonistas rolled the Sandernistas when they didn’t need to do so given they had more delegates show up at the convention..”
No, it isn’t clear that this was the case — the Clintonites only had a 30 something majority and there were 55 or more Sanders delegates who were refused credentials. They were not allowed to prove their credentials or challenge the chair’s ruling on this, which could have flipped the majority.
I am still getting clarification on some details (the whole story is a mess), but nothing so far that changes my basic understanding of the events.
In any case, following more fair and democratic procedures wouldn’t necessarily have changed the outcome of the delegate count, though it could have. My feeling is that they were just making an example, a nasty display of power. Unless… unless they were deliberately hoping to provoke a violent response in order to discredit the Sanders campaign and/or create a justification for heavy police control or exclusion of the Sanders camp at Philadelphia. Come on, you know it wouldn’t be the first time…
Trust me PJ, Nevada has a nominating process that is so singular that friends & family who have lived in the state gave up on it and waited for the general. The ‘rules’ are only valid until the first vote is taken at a meeting, and then it is whatever the chair wants to do. One of the more important votes was the one that took place two years before the nomination process to elect the party officials who actually decide how things are done.
A mail-in primary system would be fair and democratic … so there is no why in hell it would ever happen.
PJ, of the 55 Bernie delegates who were refused credentials, *ONLY 8 OF THEM HAD SHOWED UP AT THE CONVENTION IN THE FIRST PLACE*. The rest were AWOL. That said, this was a real dick move by the state party in the first place, to suddenly decide to vet Bernie delegates only 24 hours before the convention started.
My point remains: both the Hillary people and the state party people acted like real dicks once they’d won. That’s not how you build party unity. That’s being spiteful just to be spiteful. And the state party head’s letter to the DNC two days later basically arguing that the DNC should de-certify the Bernie delegates because they were rude to her was a double plus ungood dick move. Airing the party’s dirty laundry in public is *never* a wise thing to do, especially when your side *won* and can afford to be gracious.
As Ashe said in “Alien”: still collating. My cynicism failed me this time — there really are no reliable sources.
Yes, looks as if only 8 of the challenged delegates showed up — apparently they were notified by email before the convention that they’d been decertified.
Yes, it does look as Badtux said, that the rules rewriting was just a rumor that came from god knows where — although the rules were in fact pretty authoritarian, vesting too much power in the party execs.
There was a lot of misinformation and mistrust going in, especially on the Sanders side, some of it left over from the second tier caucus. Sources and motivations are unclear but post-convention, that situation has only gotten worse.
Finally, the whole snafu still pales compared to the shameful behaviour of the media and Democratic party officials who are promulgating the “violence” myth.
The whole thing needs to be scrapped and either delegates allocated via direct caucus rather than this weird 3-step thing, or via a primary if they can get the state to do that again. The process was chaos in 2008 with multiple lawsuits filed, and it was no better this time.
You’d think that you’d see Democratic leaders in Nevada apologizing for the chaos of the process and promising reforms for the next Presidential election, but that would require people to accept responsibility and that’s not how Roberta Lange rolls. Whenever you see chaos in an organization, generally it starts at the top with a lack of leadership, where the so-called “leader” turns everybody who disagrees with her into “the enemy” and gets the requisite pushback because humans just don’t take that kind of thing sitting down. That describes the Nevada Democratic Party to a tee.
Caucuses are a very discriminatory method of selecting anything. The Nevada system is the most broken of them all. Go to primaries and award delegates base on a proportional system, not winner take all. Eliminate ‘super delegates’ and have contested conventions with importance beyond free TV air time.
We used to elect Presidents by electing members of the Electoral College and allowing them to decide who was fit for the office. No one ‘ran’ for the office, they were chosen to run. Then we got political parties and everything turned to crap.
Actually, we had political parties from day one. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had very different ideas about how governments should work, and organized in opposition to each other even before the Constitution was signed. George Washington may have papered over those differences through personal charisma for his two terms of office, but the election of John Adams as President and Thomas Jefferson as Vice President thanks to that initial electoral vote system pretty much laid bare how inadequate it was. Ever since then, the vote has been for slates presented by parties, not for individuals.
Actually the Twelve Amendment specified that the electors vote separately for President and Vice President rather than for a ‘party slate’. Initially the person with the second most votes became the Vice President, which would always produce an Adams-Jefferson outcome.
Madison was complaining about the possibility of parties in the Federalist Papers even as he put forth the platform of the Federalists. It was an undercurrent, but it was further along the timeline before states started paying for party primaries and giving preference to the candidates of the major parties.
Party primaries are a pretty recent thing. Even in 1968, most delegates to the DNC were chosen via caucuses or in smoky rooms, not by primaries. That’s how Hubert Humphrey became the candidate that year, he lost every primary but won every smoky room.
When you look at all of the ‘hoops’ independents and minor party candidates have to go through to get on the ballot in Florida, and how easy it is for a Republican or Democrat to make it you can understand that the US is a two-party system and the two parties intend to keep it that way.
What annoys me is paying for two primaries – the Presidential preference on March 15 and state offices on August 30. Candidates for the House and Senate have until June 24 to qualify and state offices until May 6. The system is a mess.