Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolitifact from April - No, Bernie Sanders didn't retroactively win Nevada
http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Nevadas presidential caucuses back in February, but some supporters of Bernie Sanders are claiming the Vermont senator might have won the state after all.
The pronouncement came after Sanders delegates ended up outnumbering Clintons during the hectic Clark County Democratic Convention on April 2, leading many media outlets and supporters to declare that Sanders retroactively "won" the state by outmaneuvering Clinton.
So, did Sanders add another state to his column as many have claimed?
The answer is no, and it likely will remain that way.
Well tell you why.
Caucus math
Nevada has a total of 43 delegates it sends to the Democratic National Convention in July.
Eight of those are so-called "superdelegates," made up of elected officials like Sen. Harry Reid and other party powerhouses who get to independently decide which candidate to support. (Four currently support Clinton, one supports Sanders and three are neutral so far.)
Of the remaining 35 delegates, 23 are so-called "district-level delegates" who are allocated based on February caucus results in each of the states four congressional districts. Clinton won 13 of those, while Sanders won 10.
The remaining 12 are delved out during the state party convention in May.
Of that 12, there are five pledged "party leader and elected official" delegates and seven "at-large" delegates awarded proportionally, so whichever campaign has a majority of supporters at the state convention will win the odd-numbered delegate from those groups.
Ideally, the process is supposed to look something like a Matryoshka doll smaller amounts of delegates at each step of the process, but retaining the same proportions of the initial February caucus. Initial estimates from February had Clinton winning 20 delegates and Sanders taking 15.
But that didnt happen at the Clark County (Las Vegas) convention in early April, as the Sanders campaign had 2,964 delegates show up compared to 2,386 for Clinton.
In February, Clinton won a total of 4,889 delegates in Clark County but less than half of those showed up for the county convention.
Accusations flew from both campaigns about questionable practices before, during and after the county convention, with the Sanders campaign claiming party officials tried to "depose a neutral official," and Clinton surrogates like Nevada state director Michelle White upset with a "number of irregularities" in the convention process.
Leaving those accusations aside for the moment, the practical outcome is that Sanders now has a larger number of delegates (2,124) attending the state convention in May than Clinton (1,722).
That means theyll be in a position to pick off a few of those remaining 12 convention delegates.
Based on the numbers, its likely that Sanders will be able to flip delegates and go from a projected 20-15 deficit to a more narrow 18-17 delegate split. (This count doesnt factor in the superdelegates, who are also tilted toward Clinton.)
For Sanders, thats not "winning" Nevada.
Longtime Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston and the Associated Press reported in the immediate aftermath of the county convention that the likely final result remains a Clinton victory.
"Clintons widely expected to keep her Nevada win except in the unlikely event of a Sanders blowout at the state level or if Clinton-backing superdelegates defect to the Sanders camp," the AP reported.
Our ruling
Several reports claimed that Bernie Sanders retroactively won Nevadas presidential caucuses, based on higher-than-expected turnout at a major county convention.
Sanders likely swung two delegates his way after the county convention, but we wont know for sure until the state convention selects the delegates in May. Either way, Clinton still holds a narrow delegate lead, projections show. That lead is larger if you include the support of Nevadas so-called "super-delegates."
We rate this claim False.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 812 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Politifact from April - No, Bernie Sanders didn't retroactively win Nevada (Original Post)
Henhouse
May 2016
OP
longship
(40,416 posts)1. Rabbit season! No! duck season. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Children! Please behave.
It is Trump season, not Hillary or Bernie season. If you disagree, playground time is cancelled. If you don't know how to play nice, no more free time for you.
Now, let's get things on the hump, we've got some flying to do!