Facts about Nevada -- invitation to correct two accounts

[Sparkly]

"Debunking Sandersphere Myths About Nevada" (glenn55 at Kos)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/17/1527476/-Debunking-Sandersphere-Myths-About-Nevada

Referencing "The sour grapes revolution that rocked the Paris Hotel"
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sour-grapes

I understand that the Sanders supporters felt they were cheated. Nevada's process seems quite convoluted, so I'm just trying to get the facts straight.

Please correct the record if you know anything to be false in these posts.

Thanks.

[hellofromreddit]

1. Sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511981598

[Sparkly]

5. Thank you.

[Sparkly]

7. Okay, I'm still stuck on #1.

Didn't Clinton win the first tier, and the idea was that if anything a "flip" might happen for Sanders, but it didn't? And in one county delegates didn't provide the information required, and/or show up when they had the chance? I'm honestly just trying to get it straight. Thanks.

[hellofromreddit]

16. Yeah, their caucus is a bloody mess.

Yes, Clinton won the first tier, so she got the majority of the 23 national delegates allotted in the first tier and got an advantage (more delegates) heading into the second tier. But in the second tier she lost Clark County. I'm not totally clear on why because the news about it was full of so much bullshit. My best guess is that both sides had less than perfect attendance by their pledged delegates and Sanders had a big advantage with the alternates that were seated. That county flipped to Sanders. None of the 23 delegates that were pledged before changed. Only the delegates that THEN go to the state convention to select the remaining national delegates changed. Clark county is so large that it would have reversed the overall outcome of the state convention. Only 12 national delegates are in play at the state convention.

The frackas was at the state convention. Lange abused the rules and ramrodded a bogus rules change. It's not certain, but it looks like that rule change flipped the state convention back to Clinton by excluding mostly Sanders delegates. She did not allow anyone to challenge the decision, so now there's no real explanation as to why the delegates were excluded and no way to determine if the outcome of the state convention is valid.

Some are trying to say that the winner of tier 1 should also be the winner of tier 3, so the outcome is OK, but the system is not actually set up to make that a certainty.

[seabeyond]

2. Added, easy info.

* Based on the county convention results, Bernie Sanders had 2,124 delegate slots to the State Convention and Hillary Clinton had 1,722 delegate slots to the State Convention.

* On Saturday at the State Convention, after all of the alternates were seated, Hillary Clinton filled 1,695 of her delegate slots and Bernie Sanders only filled 1,662 at the State Convention — giving Clinton a 33-delegate margin of victory.

* Clinton only had 27 delegate positions vacant on Saturday. Sanders left 462 vacant. Clinton filled 98 percent of her available delegate slots at the State Convention, and Sanders only filled 78 percent of his available delegate slots.

* In plain terms, the Clinton campaign organized and got nearly all of their delegates to the State Convention. The Sanders campaign did not.

* Six of the 64 potential delegates were seated as delegates after investigation.

* The remaining potential delegates were ineligible for two main reasons: 1) They were not registered Democratic voters in Nevada by May 1, 2016, and 2) Their information — such as address, date of birth and name — could not be found or identified, and they did not respond to requests from the party and campaigns to correct it.

* Only eight of the ineligible delegates even attempted to register at the State Convention.

* The so-called “minority report” about these ineligible delegates was not written by the Credentials Committee — it was written by national Sanders campaign staff on site. A member of Sanders’ National Delegate Operations Team drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary report that caused chaos and violence at the convention. It was inaccurate, misleading and subsequently discredited by the Credentials Committee.

* The Credentials Committee, the panel that made decisions on these issues, was co-chaired by supporters of both campaigns and the membership of the committee was also equally divided between supporters of both campaigns. This was done to ensure that the entire process was fair, transparent and accountable for both campaigns and their supporters. The committee worked diligently and cooperatively all day, under incredibly trying circumstances, to be fair and impartial in its work.

https://medium.com/@nvdems/the-facts-about-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention-on-saturday-106cc5db3d83#.wjjg87ewh

[Sparkly]

8. Ohhh....

Thanks.

[TCJ70]

3. Ralston walking it back himself...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511984196

[apnu]

4. Nevada was a shit-show

NVDems jerked around the times, challenged credentials and all the usual rules-lawyering common in politics and pulled a lot of procedural bullshit.

Which pissed off Bernie people who were already primed with paranoia and lost it. Their behavior was as disgusting as NVDems.

[notadmblnd]

11. So you agree, this was orchastrated by the DNC and the HRC campaign?

Further more, it was done in order to create chaos and to instill fear ahead of the Philly convention.

[apnu]

14. No. Got no proof this is DNC and HRC. Looks more like a state f'up.

Not everything is connected in a vast conspiracy with Hillary at the middle. This is shit that got out of hand. Both sides lost it, and I won't play the blame game. Its childish and unproductive.

[notadmblnd]

19. Right, the DNC and HRC are as innocent as the day they were born

pure as he driven snow, they are.

[Sparkly]

17. So where's the line between "rules-lawyering" and just basic rules

that had been agreed upon?

[Kelvin Mace]

6. So, can someone provide me with a link to the fistfights

chair throwing, etc?

I keep hearing about this but have yet to see any actual video. Raltson, normally a good reporter, described it as a "near-riot", yet I haven't seen anything other than people yelling.

[Sparkly]

10. I think that's been discussed in other threads.

Doesn't matter to me. I heard enough of the yelling.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Every body keeps saying there are links "elsewhere"

but when I look around, I don't find anything portraying a "near-riot". And if people are offended by being yelled at, they really need to avoid politics.

Now, I have read transcripts of phone messages and some of those people deserve a visit from the police. But again, I have seen nothing rising to actual violence so far.

[Sparkly]

13. Okay, start another thread.

I just don't want this one to be derailed by "Yes they did" and "No they didn't" throw chairs.

Thanks.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Well, you were offering facts

about Nevada, I thought that would include, you know, facts, Links to video to back up claims of violence.

I guess not.

[Sparkly]

18. Fact about what angered the Sanders people

not how angry they got, or didn't get.

[notadmblnd]

20. Didn't happen.

It is another HRC campaign lie.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. That is the conclusion I am beginning to draw

I mean if you can't come up with video tape in a Las Vegas casino hotel...

[YouDig]

9. It's amazing just how much Bernie people on blogs have been lying about this.

The even lied about the time that the convention started. Easy, verifiable stuff, but there's just no regard for truth whatsoever in some corners of the Bernie internet.