Thank You Chris!!! (0.00 / 0)

After reading the "update" portion of your post, I think I finally understand what just happened today.

Here is how I understand it:

Pretend that the DNC decided one state would determine the nominee - no superdelagates - just one state and that state is Nevada. Then, the caucus proceeds as it did today. Who becomes the nominee? Barack Obama.
QED.

That is my understanding so far, and the fact that I now have to go educate myself on an archaic caucus system and how it relates to the archaic Democratic nomination system is a mockery of all things democracy is supposed to be.
This is not accessible to the average voter, let alone the average highly-involved political junky. Shameful.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:51:26 PM CST

History History it's all about History (0.00 / 0)

Hope someone can find a good link for the reason why we have this "archaic caucus system...

Just ventured over @ Digby's place and found this:

" ...origin of Democratic Party Rules on the Delegate Selection Process -- rules that emerged from our party reforms of 1972 and the McGovern-Fraser Commission, and I would really like for people to consider knowing some party history before making judgments on one or another system...

There was a reason for those archaic caucus selection processes...  First Question -- who was it first supposed to benefit... 

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:08:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Damn good question (0.00 / 0)

And for the record, 35 years old is plenty old to be archaic in my book :)

But as for the 'history' concern in general - I honestly could care less. I have to care, which is too bad, but I shouldn't have to. If the average Joe can't sit down for 20 minutes and figure out the ins and outs of why they vote, what they are voting for, and how their vote is counted, then the system needs to be fixed. What good is a democracy if no one understands it? And in what sense is it a democracy?

(yes, I know this is party, not government, but that distinction has become irrelevant in a fixed two-party system)

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:27:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Strange NDP statement (4.00 / 1)

". . . delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support."

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  In context, it seems to make reference to the alleged popular vote victory for Clinton today.  But it could mean "whomever Nevada Democrats seem to support at the time of the state convention."  Or it could mean nothing.

Jill Derby's statements earlier today were kind of funny.  She was clearly perturbed that the Obama campaign was declaring victory.  Her point was that the 13/12 split won't matter because the nominee will be decided before the April state convention. If so, then why did we just waste 11 days on her fair state?

---

by: benjamins @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:55:38 PM CST

No press being given to the higher democratic turnout (4.00 / 1)

It seems the lost story in these past several primaries has been that while the media is busy comparing percentages between the candidates in each state, the total number of Democratic voters turning out has hugely outnumbered the number of Republicans.

So while everybody is handicapping the horse race over which Democrat is going to go against which Republican, it seems like we're getting a big early hint that the Democratic base is way more energized than the Republicans.

I see occasional notice that the turnout in general is higher (new record in Nevada), but not much emphasis that most of that action is leaning left.

---

by: BrianDeacon @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:59:54 PM CST

"If" (0.00 / 0)

if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008

That's a big if. Check out Jerome:

I'd encourage anyone that wants to see how it will unfold to read through the NV draft (pdf) of the process.

All of these delegates in Nevada, today, in "the first determining step" are "soft" pledges. There's nothing concrete happening yet in the delegate selection of Nevada, it just started today. We'll check back April 19th, to see how it really goes down in Nevada on the state convention, and even before that, in the county conventions on Feb 24th; but to claim a "delegate win" today is just meaningless.

In Iowa, for example, it's entirely possible that Edwards, as he fades out of the contest, will lose some of those delegates to either Clinton or Obama, as it moves through the county and state selection process. Check out Hugh Winebrenner's "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses: The Making of a Media Event" to see how this has happened in the past.

In a statement, the Chair of the Nevada Dem. Party clarifies:

Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008.

---

by: PistolPetey @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:09:48 AM CST

Your spin job sucks (0.00 / 0)

No matter what the "potential" delegate count, it remains clear that Clinton won the vote with a majority.  Spin that.

---

by: RalphB @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:12:17 AM CST

A majority of what? (4.00 / 1)

Your spin is also lacking. But, you know, way to bitch about stuff.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:28:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't need to spin when you win (0.00 / 0)

...just when you're a sore loser.

---

by: thechairman66 @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:44:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Iowa v Nevada:Pledged vs Unpledged Delegates:Hard vs Soft (4.00 / 2)

The projected Iowa delelgate totals were Obama 16, Clinton 15, Edwards 14.  Doesn't seem like such a runaway result for Obama  and how is it that Edwards who came in second in the percentages got the 3rd place in delegates?  So what do the flukes of apportioned, weighted votes mean in this case?  Not as much as you would like.

However my understanding of the Iowa caucuses and I have now done them twice is that unlike Nevada, THE DELEGATES CHOSEN AT THE LOCAL PRECINCTS ARE PLELDGED, at least for the first round of voting at the state convention to their candidate. 

However in Nevada this was a beauty contest so the DELELGATES ARE NOT PLEDGED SO THESE DELEgates can vote for someone alse even on the first round vote for another candidate. The Iowa caucus delegate numbers are hard numbers and the Nevada caucus numbers are soft numbers, indeed they are just as real as wishes.

Therefore the significance of the delegate numbers mean even less than they did in Iowa.

If this understanding of the rules is wrong please find the text.  I am sure though of the Iowa rules as they were announced at the caucus and clearly stated in the materials from the state party...who, unlike nevada, are expert at this.
 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:20:33 AM CST

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

So, in reality, no one won and no one knows who one - including the voters and party leadership. Awesome :/

Good point about Iowa vs Nevada - Iowa really does make it seem easy, but the problems with the caucus system become much clearer when a novice like Nevada takes the spotlight.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:31:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mea culpa. I was wrong re iowa (4.00 / 1)

I found the Iowa delegate selection plan,  and Iowa and Nevada are the same.  In both,  when they go to the next step, in Iowa it is the county convention,  the delegates chosen at he precincts are not bound " Delegates are not required to align with the same prefernce groups that selected them at the caucus."  Those delelgates are chosen at the district wide convention on march April 26, 2008.

So both sets of delegates are NOT BOUND BY THE VOTE IN THE PRECINCTS.  So the state of the race by April 26th will decide who they vote for,  and it is likely that most delegates will decide to go for the winner determined by the following contests held on Super Tuesday and perhaps into March.

So all these delegate totals are amemdable later in time and they are not hard commitments, but soft commitments.

Primary states are different.  Caucus states have these kinds of rules.

I still think this doesn't mean Obama won Nevada ....because the delegates are not actually pledged until long after the contest is settled. 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:14:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Electability (0.00 / 0)

Is everyone sure Clinton "can't" win the general election? Can electability change? Is it sour grapes? Sexist defeatism?

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 00:36:30 AM CST

Sure Clinton can win (0.00 / 0)

But this cycle's "Webbs" and "Testers" won't win if she is the nominee.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:56:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This seems ridiculous to me (0.00 / 0)

Nevada's delegate count is not going to determine the nominee; what really matters here is the "popular vote" (i.e. the number of state delegates) and Clinton won that decisively. So I don't see how this can be anything but a victory for her. The Iowa results were reported in the same way.

 

---

by: Korha @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:03:46 AM CST

Interesting (4.00 / 1)

What was the popular vote total today?  Do you know?  I'd like to hear it.  The Nevada Dem. Party has not reported it.

---

by: benjamins @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:14:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you miss my italics? And the parenthesis which followed? (0.00 / 0)

This is the same way the Iowa results were reported.

---

by: Korha @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:35:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll try again (0.00 / 0)

The Nevada Dem. Party reported county convention delegates.  The Iowa Dem. Party reports state delegate equivalents.  Two different things.

Neither tally is a "popular vote."  That's why you had to put it in "quotes."

Do you know how many caucusgoers supported Clinton, Obama?  I have not seen those figures reported.  Could you share with us?

---

by: benjamins @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:51:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dead Wrong (0.00 / 0)

The delegate count WILL have an influence on the who becomes the nominee at the convention. Because Nevada will send delegates to the convention, and nothing else. The popular vote means nothing. Absolutely NOTHING.
Well, except for the media spin - it certainly influences that.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:58:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

that update is a real trip (0.00 / 0)

i never ever thought about it that way until now. unconventional wisdom at its best.

---

by: fernacular @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:27:49 AM CST