2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie just won Nevada! [View all]StevieM
(10,500 posts)First, the story has been debunked. Sanders will not be getting more pledged delegates to the national convention from Nevada after all.
Second, the winner of the popular vote in a given state has always been regarded as the winner of that contest, regardless of who gets more delegates. Bill and Hillary have both lost (or took third) in major contests under that standard.
Third, saying "LOL" seems a bit out of place. You are dismissing my call of Hillary as the winner--if this story had been true--as ridiculous and laughable. But in 2008 Hillary was proclaimed the winner, even though it was clear on the day of the caucus that Obama would be getting more delegates. Moreover, if the story had been true I doubt Sanders would have gone out and announced to his supporters that it turns out he was the winner of Nevada.
I discussed this in a post above.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1633779
~snip~
Nope. Hillary beat Obama in Nevada in 2008 and Sanders in 2016.
Declaring a winner in a given contest is based on who got the most votes in that contest.
Bill Clinton lost Connecticut to Jerry Brown in 1992, while getting more delegates. It was a huge story at the time, since Clinton was believed to have the nomination locked up. To some extent, it helped precipitate Ross Perot's entry into the race, since it made Clinton look weak.
Hillary Clinton came in third in Iowa in 2008. But she was projected to get one more delegate than him. Her third place showing was an enormous deal at the time.
The day of the 2008 Nevada Caucuses Hillary was declared the winner by every single media outlet, and the next day her picture was on the front page of every major paper in the country. Hillary was not defeated in Nevada in 2008 and she was not defeated there in 2016.
The concept of winning a state is arbitrary and based on how we choose to define the word win. Declaring the person who got the most votes the winner isn't exactly a crazy policy. More importantly, it is what we have always done, so I hardly see how you can call my assessment desperate or ridiculous. Common place would be a better description.
My use of the phrase "circumstances" was simply referring to delegate allocation process. I am not sure why you see that as hilarious. You seem to be implying that I am trying to diminish her being defeated as a result of the voters rejecting her. But Nevada did not reject her, she was the winner of the most votes and the expected winner of the most delegates, based on where those votes were cast, district-wise. "Circumstances" simply referred to how the state convention played out, which is independent of what the voters did or how they felt about the two candidates.
Not that any of this matters, because the latest I am hearing is that Clinton actually will get more pledged delegates to the national convention from Nevada after all.