Support NeoGAF

[Iolo]

Bernie is now arguing that he is not 3 million votes behind because of caucuses. It's the Shaun King defense. Is he deliberately misleading or just numerically illiterate?

 

[User1608]

on a side note, my favorite thing about this cycle is gonna be the dozen facebook posts i'll see from people kvetching about how close the polls are every day for the next two-odd months

I remember how much fun it was reading gaf in 2012 lol. Skewed!!

 

[excelsiorlef]

How could they be heard if they were not even there?
Sanders is such a mess.

Exactly. It's a fundamental lie and it was thrownat someone being severely harassed.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Well. If every state had open primaries he wouldn't be three million votes behind, yeah.

Kind of pointless discussing it but he's not wrong. In any case votes are meaningless because of the varied primary systems. Only pledged delegates matter.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How could they be heard if they were not even there?
Sanders is such a mess.

Barring 8, they were there.

EDIT: In fact, barring 6.

 

[royalan]

With respect, this thread is not particularly reflective of either Democratic support in general, Sanders supporters in general, or any particular demographic in general other than PoliGAF posters. Given the Clinton bent in here, it is hardly surprising that there are a number of people ready to see the worst in Sanders regardless of the occasion.

If you want me to ignore your posts, I'm quite happy to, but this conversation largely started as a result of you asking me a question about why I was so confident that Sanders would bend the knee. It seems unfair for you to ask me a question, deny my answer, and then claim I ought not to respond to your denial of my answer. That's not a conversation. Beyond that, if I fail to reply, posters accuse me of ignoring people. You can see that there's not exactly a winning hand for me here.

I don't care one way or the other whether or not you ignore my posts. I take issue with your continued insistence that I'm forcing the issue of Bernie's dog-whistling when, since I originally responded to you, a good half-dozen or more regular posters in this thread have chimed in agreeing that Bernie's comments on the south and (implicitly) black voters have been problematic.

And I specifically used the posters in this thread because this is the conversation that you're engaged in. You addressed this thread and the posters in it. And I've already posted the public letter Southern democratic leaders wrote to Bernie Sanders over his comments (and I think that's as good an indicator as any on where the party stands on Bernie's comments). I could go through and post a list of articles and tweets that would undoubtedly show that criticism of Bernie's rhetoric is far, far more widespread than PoliGAF, but you and I know that would be a waste of time. I have other things to do and, honestly, I don't believe for a second that you're as naive to the point I'm making as you're pretending to be.

This is a shift of the goalposts. I agree Sanders' experience and understanding of the black community are limited. I don't think he should be given a pass over this. Neither of these statements are sufficient to show that he used dog-whistles. He did not. Beyond that, black voices (obviously) do not all agree with one another. There are a significant number of black voters who do still support Sanders; I'd rather he listened to their advice on outreach than that of those backing Clinton who obviously have the potential for conflict of interest.

I didn't shift the goal posts. I responded directly to your assertion that I think Bernie is a closeted racist. I don't. But I do think his outreach leaves a lot to be desired and he deserves criticism for that.

And you're right; black people have supported Bernie Sanders and he has every right to listen to their voices. It is also true, however, that he has overwhelmingly lost the black vote as a group, and it would only improve him to listen to reservations that incredibly large group have about him, especially if by some miracle he became our president.

 

[jack_package_200]

Bernie is now arguing that he is not 3 million votes behind because of caucuses. It's the Shaun King defense. Is he deliberately misleading or just numerically illiterate?

Why not both?

 

[Iolo]

Well. If every state had open primaries he wouldn't be three million votes behind, yeah.

Kind of pointless discussing it but he's not wrong. In any case votes are meaningless because of the varied primary systems. Only pledged delegates matter.

And he argues he's won a lot of states. Some states he probably wouldn't have won if they were not caucuses. His nomination math works to the same extent as his tax plan: fudging and wishful thinking.

 

[Y2Kev]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought only 8 showed up, not that 8 did not show up. What am I missing?

 

[pigeon]

Barring 8, they were there.

Wait, what are you talking about?

Eight WERE there. The remaining 56 weren't, or at least, they made no effort to register at the convention as delegates.

http://nvdems.com/press/math-is-hard-for-sanders-campaign/

 

[User 463088]

Bernie is now arguing that he is not 3 million votes behind because of caucuses. It's the Shaun King defense. Is he deliberately misleading or just numerically illiterate?

It's stupid because some states DO, in fact, report total turnout. Iowa and Nevada don't, but Hillary won both of those.

Maine, Alaska and Washington are the only states that didn't report the raw votes that Bernie won. Unless he thinks there are 3 million caucus goers in those states...girl bye.

Even then, we can make educated guesses on turnout. Washington had about 230,000 people turn out. In Maine it was about 47,000. There are only 70,000 Democrats in Alaska. I'll give Bernie every single vote in every single state and he's still behind by 2.5-3 million.

 

[Iolo]

Wait, I'm confused. I thought only 8 showed up, not that 8 did not show up.

But they showed up in spirit!

 

[Aaron Strife]

14 were there. Six of them were seated.

The other 50 didn't show.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wait, what are you talking about?

Eight WERE there. The remaining 56 weren't, or at least, they made no effort to register at the convention as delegates.

http://nvdems.com/press/math-is-hard-for-sanders-campaign/

They did turn up and attempt to register as delegates (except 6), but they weren't allowed because they apparently hadn't registered as Democrats by May 1st. They would have appealed, but the appeal vote happened at 9:30 AM, before the Credentials Committee members had all turned up at 10:00 AM as scheduled. Sanders delegates than attempted to dispute the report, but too late at that point.

 

[Suikoguy]

It's stupid because some states DO, in fact, report total turnout. Iowa and Nevada don't, but Hillary won both of those.

Maine, Alaska and Washington are the only states that didn't report the raw votes that Bernie won. Unless he thinks there are 3 million caucus goers in those states...girl bye.

Even then, we can make educated guesses on turnout. Washington had about 230,000 people turn out. In Maine it was about 47,000. There are only 70,000 Democrats in Alaska. I'll give Bernie every single vote in every single state and he's still behind by 2.5-3 million.

Yeah, I thought the 3 million number was adjusted to be fair as possible.
I'd like to know one way or the other, so I can adjust it if need be.
I want to use an accurate number one way or another, and not a best case number.

 

[Armaros]

They did turn up and attempt to register as delegates (except 6), but they weren't allowed because they apparently hadn't registered as Democrats by May 1st. They would have appealed, but the appeal vote happened at 9:30 AM, before the Credentials Committee members had all turned up at 10:00 AM as scheduled. Sanders delegates than attempted to dispute the report, but too late at that point.

No, only those 8 showed up at the convention from that list and a smaller amount cleared up the issues to get seated.

The rest were missing and not present or rejected

This is indisputable.

 

[Y2Kev]

They did turn up and attempt to register as delegates (except 6), but they weren't allowed because they apparently hadn't registered as Democrats by May 1st. They would have appealed, but the appeal vote happened at 9:30 AM, before the Credentials Committee members had all turned up at 10:00 AM as scheduled. Sanders delegates than attempted to dispute the report, but too late at that point.

I'm really not following.

Only eight of these ineligible delegates – people who weren’t registered Democrats as of May 1 or failed to provide missing identification information – even attempted to register at the State Convention.

This is saying that only 8 attempted to register.

This seems like a really big miss, here. What is going on?

 

[User 463088]

Yeah, I thought the 3 million number was adjusted to be fair as possible.
I'd like to know one way or the other, so I can adjust it if need be.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

There's the real clear politics thing. If there's nothing entered, there were no official popular vote totals released. Iowa uses delegate equivalents, for instance.

 

[excelsiorlef]

They did turn up and attempt to register as delegates (except 6), but they weren't allowed because they apparently hadn't registered as Democrats by May 1st. They would have appealed, but the appeal vote happened at 9:30 AM, before the Credentials Committee members had all turned up at 10:00 AM as scheduled. Sanders delegates than attempted to dispute the report, but too late at that point.

Incorrect 56 flat out did not show up on the day flat out no shows.

Vote was scheduled to start at 9. Late registration was allowed until 10 but votevwas scheduled at 9.

Sanders delegates got out organized. End of story.

 

[Makai]

Trump said he wasn't eating Oreos because they outsourced jobs to Mexico. Then he said even Chris Christie had stopped eating them.

 

[Crocodile]

This is a strawman. Neither Sanders, nor I, have *ever* said black voters are idiots. Ever. Sanders did engage with the Vermont black community. There's quite a good article on this here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liam-miller/african-american-leaders-in-vermont_b_9300672.html

(cut down to selected parts, but you can read the article in full).

I also think it's pretty insulting to suggest people like Nina Turner are bad surrogates without supporting your statement.

Sanders' campaign focus has been on the economic issues because, bluntly speaking, they're what you need to build the cross-sectional coalition that wins elections. There are poor black people and poor white people; it's an issue that should cross the racial divide. However, he has put out a comprehensive list of racial rights reforms, one that Campaign Zero considers more complete than Clinton's.

Wanting to primary Obama had nothing to do with Obama's race. Sanders suggested it in 2011 immediately after Obama proposed a cut to Social Security, and for that reason. Heck, Sanders stumped for Obama against Clinton in '08, and endorsed Jesse Jackson in both runs and ensured that Vermont was one of the few states to vote for Jackson.

A) Calling Black voters "low information" for not knowing or supporting Sanders is not far removed from calling them idiots or at least not far removed enough for many people's tastes. As both I've said and Cesare Borgia has pointed out - he needed to be making inroads into the Black community and showing how serious he is to their needs months/years before he ran. That's his fault not our fault. Nice words on his website will never compensate for groundwok in the "community trenches" so to speak. The Black community, as a whole, is the most consistently loyal and most reliable voting block in the Democratic party. You can't win the nomination unless you put in SERIOUS work and Sanders work both within the context of the campaign and before it didn't do enough. I'm glad some Black leaders found his work in Vermont satisfactory but its clear its not a unanimous opinion and, unfortunately for him, I've heard little similar praise in other parts of the country. You're right in that the Black community isn't a monolith and he has some support within the community but we can still look at the data and voting results - overall said community has emphatically rejected him all over the country. The blame lies with him.

B) Yes Nina Turner is a terrible surrogate. I came to this conclusion after hearing her stump for Sanders frequently on TV and finding that her statements or proclamations were frequently incongruent with reality. She hasn't been as bad as Killer Mike or West (damn was a terrible pick) though.

C) As the meme/joke/sad realization goes: Wall Street aren't the folks denying jobs and houses to Black people because they have African names. No amount of money in your pocket as a Black person is going to protect you from bullets. Different voter blocks have different priorities. Economics concern everybody but some groups have concerns that take precedent over that and you have to adjust your messaging in accordance. Sanders did a poor job of doing so.

D) I never said Sanders wanted to primary Obama because he was Black. I'm just saying that taking shots (and lets face it wanting to primary someone is pretty extreme) against someone who is SUPER POPULAR among the block of voters you are trying to win over is going to make it harder to win them over. Like that's just basic logic. Try taking shots at Jesus and see how far you get with Evangelicals. The Obama coalition is the winning coalition of the current Democratic party. Clinton bear hugged Obama (and she had the cred to do so since she worked so closely with him in his administration) Sanders did not. He is a man who basically started out his campaign with the explicit goal of targeting "White working class voters" who he considered the largest block of voters in the party not getting represented (I don't have the article on hand but its been posted in here recently). These are obstacles Sanders made for himself.

 

[Tamanon]

Is this going to turn into the next "Hillary won Iowa by 7 out of 7 coin flips! Impossible!" thing?

 

[Suikoguy]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

There's the real clear politics thing. If there's nothing entered, there were no official popular vote totals released. Iowa uses delegate equivalents, for instance.

Hmm, so we would need to figure out some type of formula to input numbers for states that don't release vote totals.

That would at least make it close to the real results.

Edit: Looks like the ones who do report would need to be somewhat adjusted too, as i'm sure more than 300 people voted in Wyoming.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Incorrect 56 flat out did not show up on the day flat out no ahows

That's not true. They were waiting outside, see: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/15/what-happened-at-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention/ for a first person account, plus accounts from several people I know who were there.

 

[jack_package_200]

This meme is so fucking stupid. Both Hillary and Donald won more pledged delegates and had more than enough of the popular vote. Thats what will make them the nominee. The people chose Hillary and Trump.

The only way Bernie will be the nominee at this point is if the supers overrule the will of the people.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

 

[User 463088]

Is this going to turn into the next "Hillary won Iowa by 7 out of 7 coin flips! Impossible!" thing?

Of course money favored her! WALL STREET! Greed! Corporations! CHICKEN NUGGETS!

 

[Rubenov]

Trump said he wasn't eating Oreos because they outsourced jobs to Mexico. Then he said even Chris Christie had stopped eating them.

Bwehehe. Christie brought this upon himself.

 

[Suikoguy]

That's not true. They were waiting outside, see: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/15/what-happened-at-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention/ for a first person account, plus accounts from several people I know who were there.

Uh, you did look at some of the bullshit that guy is spouting right?

Oh! I almost forgot to tell you — during my search, I stumbled across multiple places where the AP has done the exact same thing! Take Arizona, for instance. As if the rampant voter fraud that had just occurred there wasn’t enough (which the media also mostly ignored

I would not take his word on anything.

 

[Tamanon]

That's not true. They were waiting outside, see: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/15/what-happened-at-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention/ for a first person account, plus accounts from several people I know who were there.

That doesn't say those ineligible delegates were outside.

 

[User 463088]

My ex-Berniebro literally sent me a letter (an actual letter, mind you) where he followed Bernie's apologizing strategy.

Once sentence "apologizing," followed by three paragraphs of explaining to me why it was really all my fault. Is this a form letter they have saved somewhere?

 

[hawk2025]

My ex-Berniebro literally sent me a letter (an actual letter, mind you) where he followed Bernie's apologizing strategy.

Once sentence "apologizing," followed by three paragraphs of explaining to me why it was really all my fault. Is this a form letter they have saved somewhere?

Stay strong friend

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why are we going to the Olympics in Brazil again?

This seems like something Trump could use.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A) Calling Black voters "low information" for not knowing or supporting Sanders is not far removed from calling them idiots or at least not far removed enough for many people's tastes.

No. Not knowing one of the two major candidates in an election and nevertheless voting means you are a low information voter. That's close to tautologically true. It is not at all the same as implying you are an idiot, because there are many reasons why people can't access information. The only people making this link are Sanders' detractors, never Sanders.

As both I've said and Cesare Borgia has pointed out - he needed to be making inroads into the Black community and showing how serious he is to their needs months/years before he ran. That's his fault not our fault. Nice words on his website will never compensate for groundwok in the "community trenches" so to speak. The Black community, as a whole, is the most consistently loyal and most reliable voting block in the Democratic party. You can't win the nomination unless you put in SERIOUS work and Sanders work both within the context of the campaign and before it didn't do enough.

This at least I mostly agree with. I don't think Sanders ever expected to seriously win. I think he just wanted to draw attention to some issues close to him and influence the eventual outcome; he never did any groundwork for a presidential run. As it happened, Clinton ended up being a rather weak and uninspiring candidate and Sanders caught fire from that point on. Nevertheless, you're right that meant he was lacking in 'in the trenches experience'.

I'm glad some Black leaders found his work in Vermont satisfactory but its clear its not a unanimous opinion and, unfortunately for him, I've heard little similar praise in other parts of the country. You're right in that the Black community isn't a monolith and he has some support within the community but we can still look at the data and voting results - overall said community has emphatically rejected him all over the country. The blame lies with him.

Well, yes and no. There are many reasons why Sanders' didn't think he would end up being a serious candidate. Once he realized he could be, I think he made a genuine and determined effort to provide a serious and appealing program for black American voters. If the Democratic party had in any way nurtured the left wing of the party, and Sanders hadn't had to blaze his own trail, I think he could have done much better with the black American community. I mean, flip the question: suppose you're Sanders circa 2014, and you're deciding (much earlier) you want to make a serious presidential run and attract support from the black American community. How do you do it? The DNC would largely laugh at any attempt by you to get yourself in the national profile - they've been doing that even now Sanders has over 40% of the Democratic primary vote. So I don't think Sanders even had the chance to make a strong appeal to the black American community - he was finished before he started.

B) Yes Nina Turner is a terrible surrogate. I came to this conclusion after hearing her stump for Sanders frequently on TV and finding that her statements or proclamations were frequently incongruent with reality. She hasn't been as bad as Killer Mike or West (damn was a terrible pick) though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

C) As the meme/joke/sad realization goes: Wall Street aren't the folks denying jobs and houses to Black people because they have African names. No amount of money in your pocket as a Black person is going to protect you from bullets. Different voter blocks have different priorities. Economics concern everybody but some groups have concerns that take precedent over that and you have to adjust your messaging in accordance. Sanders did a poor job of doing so.

With respect, even black voters list the economy as a more important issue to them in issue tracking polls than they do (for example) the police system. Obviously these things can't be entirely extricated: the entrenched racism that is a part of the economy itself means economic issues play out differently for black voters. Nevertheless, I don't think Sanders' failure to appeal was due to an overfocus on the economic issues. If anything, that probably stood him in better stead among black voters than anything else.

D) I never said Sanders wanted to primary Obama because he was Black. I'm just saying that taking shots (and lets face it wanting to primary someone is pretty extreme) against someone who is SUPER POPULAR among the block of voters you are trying to win over is going to make it harder to win them over. Like that's just basic logic. Try taking shots at Jesus and see how far you get with Evangelicals. The Obama coalition is the winning coalition of the current Democratic party. Clinton bear hugged Obama (and she had the cred to do so since she worked so closely with him in his administration) Sanders did not. He is a man who basically started out his campaign with the explicit goal of targeting "White working class voters" who he considered the largest block of voters in the party not getting represented (I don't have the article on hand but its been posted in here recently). These are obstacles Sanders made for himself.

I don't think Sanders ever thought he would be in a presidential position in 2012. Captain Hindsight, and so on. I don't disagree, though - I just think that if Sanders had realized how weak Clinton was and how strong his message could be, things might have played out differently, and that it is a little unfair to criticize him for a situation he couldn't possibly have foreseen as recently as 2011 when he made the primary remarks.

 

[User 463088]

Stay strong friend

Thanks! It's all good, I just laughed my butt off that it was literally a carbon copy of Bernie's strategy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Uh, you did look at some of the bullshit that guy is spouting right?



I would not take his word on anything.

I just googled for a first person account. While I can't link to it, I do know several people who were there, and all said that most of the denied delegates were present but not allowed entry to the building. excelsiorf has provided no citation at all, by contrast.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That doesn't say those ineligible delegates were outside.

With respect, if you read a little more carefully:

The Sanders delegates (let’s all give them a round of applause, please) stuck it out for upwards of 13 hours, demanding a re-vote, while our poor, disenfranchised 64 delegates waited patiently outside.

 

[pigeon]

That's not true. They were waiting outside, see: https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/15/what-happened-at-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention/ for a first person account, plus accounts from several people I know who were there.

So, I mean, I guess we have two different primary sources providing different information. I'm not sure that there's much utility in debating the topic if the two sides can't agree on factual questions.

I will note that the source you provided here is actually advocating in this article for harassing the NV Dem chair, which affects his credibility in my eyes.

 

[pigeon]

I just googled for a first person account. While I can't link to it, I do know several people who were there, and all said that most of the denied delegates were present but not allowed entry to the building. excelsiorf has provided no citation at all, by contrast.

I already provided a citation in the post of mine that you responded to.

 

[Tamanon]

With respect, if you read a little more carefully:

But that's odd, why would 64 wait outside if 6 were allowed in? A show of solidarity? Seems a bit strange to me!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

My ex-Berniebro literally sent me a letter (an actual letter, mind you) where he followed Bernie's apologizing strategy.

Once sentence "apologizing," followed by three paragraphs of explaining to me why it was really all my fault. Is this a form letter they have saved somewhere?

It's not a Bernie thing, it's what anyone who is expected to apologize but doesn't really want to does.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I already provided a citation in the post of mine that you responded to.

You have misunderstood the citation. They did not register, because they were not allowed to. After appeal, some of them were then allowed to register. The others simply had to wait outside. That does not mean they did not turn up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But that's odd, why would 64 wait outside if 6 were allowed in? A show of solidarity? Seems a bit strange to me!

That person doesn't seem to have been aware 6 were re-admitted, which is fair enough - there were over 2,000 people there.

 

[Tamanon]

That person doesn't seem to have been aware 6 were re-admitted, which is fair enough - there were over 2,000 people there.

No, he's completely aware of it, because he said 6 were admitted before his update. Just seems like he's throwing around statements. Either way, it's silliness that's just meant to fire up the supporters. Hillary won the caucus, and that means she should win the state. Another reason I hate caucuses, as they're inherently undemocratic.

 

[pigeon]

You have misunderstood the citation. They did not register, because they were not allowed to. After appeal, some of them were then allowed to register. The others simply had to wait outside. That does not mean they did not turn up.

The post actually says that they did not attempt to register, not that they did not successfully register.

I guess it's still theoretically possible that they received their notice that they were going to be disallowed, did not respond to the notice, traveled to the convention anyway, and then didn't even attempt to register once they arrived, even though attempting to register had a 75% success rate, but it strikes me that going to the convention and not telling anybody who works at the convention that you're there is kind of on you if it doesn't work.

With respect, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that debating factual claims when neither of us were present and we both have contradictory sources is going to be a waste of time.

edit: Politifact goes further and claims that they did not appear at the convention at all.

Importantly, the state party reported only eight of the rejected delegates even showed up to the convention, so even if they had been seated it would not have flipped the majority.

Of course, this is the same original source as the NV Dems blog post in the first place.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I just googled for a first person account. While I can't link to it, I do know several people who were there, and all said that most of the denied delegates were present but not allowed entry to the building. excelsiorf has provided no citation at all, by contrast.

It was in the polifact article you summarily dismissed

 

[ampere]

To the people who were refuting the "dog-whistling" comment I made regarding Bernie, I understand giving him the benefit of the doubt generally speaking but:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/mag...ight-everybody-else-is-wrong-clear-about-that (can use cache on Google if you want to read it)

Not long after the show­down with Vit­ter, I sit with Sanders on a couch in Harry Re­id’s foy­er out­side the Sen­ate floor to dis­cuss his highly spe­cif­ic vis­ion for the Left. In re­cent months, Sanders has in­dic­ated he’s will­ing to use his fire-and-brim­stone act not simply to in­flu­ence a pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, but also to lay the ground­work for something of a “polit­ic­al re­volu­tion.” “Let me ask you,” he says, his gangly frame strug­gling to con­tain it­self to our couch, “what is the largest vot­ing bloc in Amer­ica? Is it gay people? No. Is it Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans? No. His­pan­ics? No. What?” An­swer: “White work­ing-class people.” Bring them back in­to the lib­er­al fold, he fig­ures, and you’ve got your re­volu­tion.

makes me think he knows exactly what he was saying. His main targeted demographics was white people. He is objectively wrong here regarding this being the key to winning an election, the vote share of white people is dropping so the Obama coalition is the proper demographic to target, and that's why Hillary is winning

This meme is so fucking stupid. Both Hillary and Donald won more pledged delegates and had more than enough of the popular vote. Thats what will make them the nominee. The people chose Hillary and Trump.

The only way Bernie will be the nominee at this point is if the supers overrule the will of the people.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

It's almost like this "idea" of Bernie Sanders as this perfect icon has really really gotten to some folks. It's no longer about the policies anymore

Like religion sorta

My ex-Berniebro literally sent me a letter (an actual letter, mind you) where he followed Bernie's apologizing strategy.

Once sentence "apologizing," followed by three paragraphs of explaining to me why it was really all my fault. Is this a form letter they have saved somewhere?

Who the heck writes letters!?

What a mess

 

[dramatis]

With respect, if you read a little more carefully:

Rules of a caucus are when it hits specified time, doors close. This is a caucus convention. If they weren't verified and seated by 10, then it doesn't matter how long they waited outside, they're not eligible to caucus. Nor were they disenfranchised; after all, these were the rules.

You have your first hand account of "poor disenfranchised voters", but one Sanders idiot clearly demonstrated that he was too dumb to read rules before changing his party before May 1st. If he was so impulsive and dumb to do so after the NY primary, I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more who did the same.

The Sanders superdelegate being so eager to misinform Hillary delegates in NV, and the amount of cheering about how the Sanders delegates disenfranchised the first caucus vote in the second round, well, consider it karma, Crab.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It was in the polifact article you summarily dismissed

The Politifact source cites the state party release. Given that the whole point of this debacle is that the Sanders' delegates dispute the veracity of the state party's account, we're at somewhat of an impasse. All I can say is that I know people who went who I trust strongly to have an accurate understanding of the situation. I suspect pigeon is largely right in that we will probably not be able to come to a common point on this, bar a third-party source as yet undiscussed.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

To the people who were refuting the "dog-whistling" comment I made regarding Bernie, I understand giving him the benefit of the doubt generally speaking but:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/mag...ight-everybody-else-is-wrong-clear-about-that (can use cache on Google if you want to read it)



makes me think he knows exactly what he was saying. His main targeted demographics was white people. He is objectively wrong here regarding this being the key to winning an election, the vote share of white people is dropping so the Obama coalition is the proper demographic to target, and that's why Hillary is winning.

This right here. If Bernie wants to argue his revolution based on this, he can enjoy getting ignored by the Obama coalition. I'm not giving him any benefit of the doubt when he's acting like this.

And Crab, you're still arguing that black people apparently don't research candidates for voting. Without some serious evidence, I'm not okay with that statement.

 

[CCS]

The Politifact source cites the state party release. Given that the whole point of this debacle is that the Sanders' delegates dispute the veracity of the state party's account, we're at somewhat of an impasse. All I can say is that I know people who went who I trust strongly to have an accurate understanding of the situation. I suspect pigeon is largely right in that we will probably not be able to come to a common point on this, bar a third-party source as yet undiscussed.

I think I'll stick with believing the people who weren't sending death threats.