Yes, Obama Won Nevada

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:25


Imagine if, the day after the 2000 election, the national media simply didn't care about what happened in Florida, and instead acted as though Al Gore had won the election because he won the popular vote. Imagine if all cries from the Bush campaign about something called "The Electoral College" fell on deaf ears, and everyone just acted like Gore won and the popular vote was the only thing that mattered. States? Who cares about the results of individual states? Only the popular vote matters, dummies!

While that would have been perfectly fine with me, since I think the Electoral College is an anti-democratic institution that favors the will of geographic areas over the will of American citizens, it isn't what happened. The reason it isn't what happened is that everyone knows Presidency in America is determined by electoral votes, not popular votes. As such, electoral votes, not popular votes, are the main focus during any Presidential general election.

However, today the media decided that the Electoral College doesn't matter, and because Al Gore won the popular vote he won the election. Or, more accurately, the media decided that because more delegates to the Nevada state Democratic Party convention in April indicated they would support Clinton than Obama, it doesn't matter that the way the state delegates are arranged by geography actually projects to Barack Obama sending more pledged delegates from Nevada to the Democratic National Convention. Just as the Constitution indicates that the Electoral College, not the popular vote, determines the winner of the Presidency, Democratic Party by-laws make it quite clear that delegates to the national convention, not the popular vote and not delegates to the state convention, determine the winner of the presidential nomination campaign. Strangely, however, even though Obama is projected to win the most delegates to the national convention, Clinton is projected as the winner.

Chris Bowers :: Yes, Obama Won Nevada
I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote. Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign. If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa. That is, after all, what actually happened in the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, which is based on delegates, not popular votes from states. Instead of covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, the media is instead covering who wins the popular vote of individual states. While what the media is covering is interesting and closer to the concept of one person, one vote, it isn't the Democratic presidential nomination campaign.

Until the national media declares that Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election because he won the popular vote, I will continue to assert that Barack Obama won the Democratic caucuses in Nevada. To agree with one statement without agreeing to both statements is to be caught in a logical contradiction. If delegates to the national convention don't determine who won a state in a nomination campaign, then the Electoral College doesn't determine who wins the Presidency in a general election. We all know, of course, that both of those propositions are false.

If there is a Nevada that Obama lost today, it is a Nevada that exists in a reality outside the presidential nomination rules of the Democratic Party.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

That doesn't make sense (4.00 / 2)
If the media was covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign, then they would have projected Barack Obama as the winner of the Nevada caucuses, projected New Hampshire as a tie between Clinton and Obama, and declared that Clinton finished second in Iowa.

I mean this. Because that would be a completely wrong and shitty way of reporting the nomination contest. The primaries are momentum based. That's why the elections are held on a rolling schedule and that's why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards spent 1000000 days campaigning in insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire which go first. This isn't a media construction; the primary was explicitly designed this way by the DNC and the state parties. Contrast this with the general election, which is designed in quite the opposite manner.

Delegate counts will be much more enlightening and much more important on February 5th and afterwards, and the media will cover it that way. But not in the four early state contests.


Yes and No (0.00 / 0)
Yes, media spin matters immensley. But delegates elect a nominee.
That's why the elections are held on a rolling schedule and that's why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards spent 1000000 days campaigning in insignificant states like Iowa and New Hampshire which go first. This isn't a media construction; the primary was explicitly designed this way by the DNC and the state parties.

So you are arguing that the media's perception of events matters more than the delegate count? Simply because the DNC designed it this way? Well, sorry DNC, but your 'way' is based on a distortion of facts. Media perception is influential, but delegates select the nominee. If I had to choose one to be the 'most important' factor, I would have to say delegates are more important than media perception. Regardless of what the DNC wants. 

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

[ Parent ]
Kos posted that Edwards was second to (4.00 / 2)
Hillary's third in Iowa, but she got more delegates than Edwards.  I didn't bother to look it up, but I assume it is true.  The whole system sucks.  Our elections are not free, fair, open, informed, or democratic.  This election will finally do it for me.  I am moving to the camp that says "don't vote, it only encourages them".  Until there is some real meaningful election reform or protest, there really is no point.

[ Parent ]
Previously (4.00 / 1)
I've been harsh and judgmental toward people in the "don't vote, it only encourages them" camp but now I concede that they do have a point.

I'm sitting on dead ready for that protest but most people won't care. They'll just get a latte and go shopping.


[ Parent ]
It will never happen, but I'd love to see (4.00 / 1)
a bi-partisan protest.  Like everybody writes in none of the above and let the chips fall where they may.  Either that or it's the streets; and I'm not advocating that - yet.

[ Parent ]
"Seeing," by Jose Saramago... (0.00 / 0)
...anybody out there read it? This discussion made me think of it.

[ Parent ]
Well that's silly (4.00 / 1)
Hillary Clinton got 48% of the popular vote and Barack Obama got 41%.

Winning is really about momentum.

So a headline that read: "Hillary wins popular vote, but Obama likely to get more national delegates" would be okay.

I say this as an Edwards delegate.


"momentum" is one of the more frustrating constructs of the MSM (4.00 / 1)
What does it mean aside from a cheap legitimization of their urge to shape the race? The pundits/talking heads may be an enthralling kabuki dance, but taking their rules into play above the, well, legal truth when determining _what actually happened_ and reporting this result is sillier than anything in Chris's post. Barack Obama won the 2008 Nevada Democratic caucus according to the rules of the  Democratic National Committee, which (uh at least de jure) selects the party's nominee. Assuming the acceptance of political parties as legitimate organizations, saying that anyone else won the caucus is a grave omission at best.

[ Parent ]
If the DNC (0.00 / 0)
planned it to be about momentum and not delegates, about the popular vote it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, put two caucuses upfront.  Can anyone tell me what percentage of the popular vote John Edwards got today?

Popular Vote?? (0.00 / 0)
I too have yet to see the results in numbers of the popular vote. When will those numbers be released?

If not NOW, when?

[ Parent ]
Viability jockeying (0.00 / 0)
From reading some of the caucus diaries -some of Clinton's delegates seem to have been lost in the jockeying to make Edwards viable, when he became viable and when he did not.

[ Parent ]
This is the Most Ridiculous Part of All (2.00 / 2)
I've learned two things today. First, the Democratic presidential nomination system is not particularly democratic, since the system of delegate selection is different than the concept of one person one vote. Second, I have learned that the national media is not actually covering the Democratic presidential nomination campaign.

Wow - no shit, Sherlock!

And you're supposed to be an astute observer of the political scene?

The bitching and moaning by the Obama-ites who have suddenly realized that politics is not beanbag is most amusing. Maybe that whole "let's all get along" line your candidate has been pushing needs a little looking at?


Nevada and Iowa delegates can vote for whomever they want (4.00 / 5)
Mea culpa. I was wrong before re Iowa, in Chris's first attempt to stop the tide from coming in.

I found the Iowa delegate selection plan. Iowa and Nevada are the same.  In both,  when they go to the next step, in Iowa it is the district (county) convention,  the delegates chosen at the precincts are not bound "Delegates are not required to align with the same preference groups that selected them at the caucus." p.7

The next set of delelgates are chosen at the district wide convention on 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 amendable later in time.They are not hard commitments, but soft commitments.  They are indeed gathering delegates, but the delelgates in caucus states, are not required to vote for the person who brung'em

Primary states are different. 

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

So indeed the momentum narrative, and popular vote totals from these early states are a very significant part of that momentum ,does matter.  As that does determine who actually could amass the most delegates in the future....

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


That momentum narrative (0.00 / 0)
is a reality created by the media, agreed to by the campaigns, and it is determining our nominee. I don't like that. Didn't like it in 2004, don't like it now. Granted, the campaigns all agreed to it before any of this, and I went along with it too, so crying over it now is a bit of sour grapes. However, I still don't like it, and next time around I'd like to see it done away with.

[ Parent ]
Terrible Analogy (4.00 / 2)
This is nothing like the Electoral College. If you want to get really technical about this, there is no "winner" of Nevada as such. If delegates are all that matter, then it doesn't make since to talk about winning Nevada or any other state.

In fact, if delegates are all you care about, then Hillary is currently trouncing Obama.

To the extent that we are going to anoint a 'winner' of Nevada, it makes more sense to base it on the percentages than on the delegates.


Delegates are all that matter (0.00 / 0)
So yes, Clinton IS trouncing Obama on that front, thanks to the supremely undemocratic superdelegates. Delegates elect a nominee, therefore nothing else matters. Just like Electoral Votes elect a president, and nothing besides them matters.

People LIKE to think popular votes matter, but clearly they do not in many forms of elections (i.e. - the electoral college and primary caucuses). So why does it make more sense for percentages to declare a winner? This ain't a senate race. This ain't a mayoral race. It is a caucus and it plays by different rules, just like a presidential election plays by different rules.

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


[ Parent ]
Primaries aren't really elections (0.00 / 0)
Talking about a nomination process as being "undemocratic" doesn't really make any sense. Nobody's being elected to anything. A political party is picking their nominee and they can do so in any manner they want. No one has a "right" to vote for the Democratic nominee any more than you have a right to vote for the nominee of the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party, etc.

If we wanted to, we could let the last nominee choose the next one. We could flip a coin. We could ask a psychic.

The party has chosen to open up the process a bit, but they don't have to open it up completely.


[ Parent ]
Chris is right (0.00 / 0)
Obama won.

And primary delegates are analogous to general election popular votes.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.


debcoop Is Right, Chris (4.00 / 6)
These are only first-round delegates we're talking about in a multi-tiered process where shifts of allegience are part of the normal proccess, in light of later changes in the race.

This is in sharp contrast to the Electoral College in which "faithless electors" are rare exceptions, not the rule.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Re: debcoop Is Right, Chris (0.00 / 0)
Yes. The rules are set up to allow deals and horse trading at the nominating convention. In the past that was one of the biggest roles the party bosses played. A lot of our presidential nominees were selected that way in brokered conventions, with  many delegates shifting from one candidate to another as each round of votes was counted.

[ Parent ]
THATS WHACK!!!! (0.00 / 0)
I was totally unaware of any of this :/

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
Re: THATS WHACK!!!! (0.00 / 0)
The nominating process is much more democratic since the reforms of the 1970s. There's a history at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia....

Still the rules are complex and each state has its own. There are pledged delegates who can't change their vote, and there are unpledged delegates who have more freedom to change their vote.

The Democratic convention formal rules are at
http://www.demconven...

Nevada Democratic Party for example has 25 pledged delegates and 8 unpledged. For Nevada Democrats, the rules say

"... the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that district by each preference group..."

the Nevada rules are at
http://www.nvdemscau...

So the way Nevada works is that the caucus results are used to apportion delegates to the Nevada county and state conventions. So what that means is Obama did win the pledged district delegate count, but he won't necessarily win the total delegate count.


[ Parent ]
Simple point (4.00 / 1)
If we considered delegates won to be the standard we use to determine winners, how come everyone,including Chris Bowers, uses popular vote numbers to call/project races.

When you saw the popular result results you didn't hesitate to  use them to call the race. You even noted Clinton was down 10-12% in the rurals.

This is really sad spin Chris. You've offically proved that there are a lot of people in the blogosphere that are just as biased and agenda driven than people in the mainstream media.


Re: simple point (0.00 / 0)
Both are important. The delegates elected at the caucus are pledged to a candidate. But there are still unpledged delegates, and they can change their vote if it looks like the party is closing around one candidate who has all the momentum. IMO the Nevada results are inconclusive.

[ Parent ]
No that is not the case in a caucus state (0.00 / 0)
The delegates elected in the local precincts are NOT pledged to the candidate.  Please look at my comment upthread....Delegates are not bound to their candidates, p7 of Iowa delegate plan.

The delegates chosen in primaries, ( at least most that i know about) are the actual delegates chosen to the ones to go to the DNC convention in Denver.  They ARE pledged to their candidate, at least on the first round of voting, UNLESS their candidate releases them.

So you have to put different weights on the numbers/delelgates in caucus states versus primary states.

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


[ Parent ]
Nevada delegate selection rules (0.00 / 0)
I think you're wrong about Nevada, I don't know about Iowa. See my comment and links upthread. The Nevada rules on page 18 -

"Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly, alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the caucus vote won in that district by each preference group ...

Within each Congressional District, district-level delegates shall be chosen by eligible convention delegates who have signed statements of support for a given presidential candidate. Eligible delegate may only vote for persons running for a district-level delegate or alternate position that are pledged to support the same presidential candidate."


[ Parent ]
The State Party disagree's with you (0.00 / 0)
Jill Derby, the chairwoman, and the Nevada state party disagree with you T.

They clearly said that delegates are not decided until the national convention


[ Parent ]
That IS the Nevada Dem party rule (0.00 / 0)
That was a quote right out of the Nevada Democratic Party rules. Yes, the rulebook says the caucus vote is nonbinding, but it also says the delegates to the national convention must be a fair reflection of the caucus results.

The National Democratic Party has the identical language about fair reflection in it's delegate selection rules
http://www.demconven...

Nevada Democrats who will be voting for delegates in their County and State conventions are maybe going to be thinking about candidate loyalty pretty hard.


[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
That quote should say

Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district.

don't know how that got left out.


[ Parent ]
Nevada has a very complicated system (0.00 / 0)
the cite you make refers not to the delgates selected at the precinct caucuses on the Jan 19th.  That is actually determined by this on p. 7. (pages are in the nev plan not the adobe printout)  "Delegates are not bound by their declared Presidential Preference at the the pct caucuses." 

THEN they go to the next stage the county convention.  That is Feb 24th....after Super Tuesday,  at which "There will be a non binding presidential preference poll conducted in writing" and "Delegates are not bound to their declared presidiential preference at the county conventions" At this stage the delegates chosen for the next stage, the state convention must adhere to the affirmative action plan put out by the DNC, e.g. equal male/female numbers

Then the next step is that each presidiential campaign gets to approve their delegates p. 10

Your quote refers what happens at the state convention. But at the district convention all those "representing" Clinton or Edwards or Obama can change thier allegiances.  So who knows what happens by the State convention.  I think that what has happened on Super Tuesday will have a big effect on the the district convention vote on the 24th and by the 26th they will in all probablity have chosen one of the 3 to support at the convention.

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


[ Parent ]
Switching for appearance or switching for real (0.00 / 0)
Delegates usually switch preferences only to rally behind the obvious winner and present a unified front at the national convention.  The Reno Gazette-Journal says

"The county convention delegates are non-binding. For example, if one candidate ends up winning the rest of the primaries still on the calendar, it's likely that all of Nevada's national delegates would end up supporting that candidate at the national convention for the sake of party unity.

Switching preferences in a bad faith move to circumvent the caucus results would be against the party rules. But this is the first time in recent memory that Nevada has been relevant in the nominee process, so no one can totally predict how it will play out.

No one has really worried about all this in the past because only a dozen or so small states use the caucus process. They don't make any difference in the national convention. Unless the delegate count is razor close.


[ Parent ]
Seriously sour grapes (4.00 / 4)
Look at all the NV newspapers, all the national newspapers - we're only 3 states in, Chris, and you're buying into the sour grapes Obama strategy of trying to spin a surprisingly deep loss as a "win." I'm surprised. Clinton didn't try to claim she came in "second" in Iowa. Anybody who claims Obama won is just displaying their strong dislike of Clinton, alas.

Winners (4.00 / 3)
Winners do not jump on a plane to their home State without giving a victory speech.

And now for a dose of reality. (0.00 / 0)

Clinton won in the media "hyper-reality" of Jean Baudrillard that Chris brought up a few weeks ago, but NOT anywhere else. Bowers is absolutely right. Time for the Obama camp and the rest of us to educate the media. Obama won.

Last time i checked (0.00 / 0)
last time i checked the entire nomination process was media driven.

[ Parent ]
Not the last time I checked. (0.00 / 0)
The media is powerful, no doubt. But really, entire nomination process?

[ Parent ]
Why is Iowa so important? (4.00 / 1)
Momentum/media narrative.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, this is basicalyl my position (4.00 / 2)
The media has set up a different reality to measure who is winning the nomination contest. That reality clearly matters, but it is also arbitrary and does not mesh with DNC rules. I admit I bought into it for a while, just because I was wrong before doesn't mean that I am not allowed to change my mind now.

According to Democratic Party by-laws, the nominee is determined by delegates to the national convention. According to media hyper-reality, the nominee is chosen by momentum generated from popular vote victories in early primaries, and popular delegate victories in early caucuses. Both realities exist--I wish that everyone focused on the former rather than the latter.

[ Parent ]
I sympathize (0.00 / 0)
... and agree that this momentum business as portrayed by the MSM is bullshit.  Watch the average football game to see it in play (and recall why Don Meredith had to stop singing "turn out the lights, the party's over").  Volatile is the MSM term for them not knowing what the hell's going on.

But one election does influence the next, independently of the hype.  If the New Jersey primary was first in the nation, I'd have voted for Edwards.  When it finally rolls around, I won't because I don't consider him a factor, and his message has -- in my opinion -- been at least in part absorbed.  If the New Jersey primary were last summer, I'd have voted for Kucinich, but hey!  The absolute meaning of any given vote changes as the campaign develops.

What's needed, and I hope you can develop this, is a more dynamic analysis that avoids both treating each state race in splendid Crusoe-like isolation and the media horserace frenzy.  Just because people are influenced by the media doesn't mean they are controlled by it.  Even at my most analytically brilliant (:>)), I have to take into account the influence of the media as one would take into account an approaching train.

What would counter that would be a level of organization and organizational discipline that progressives don't yet have.  That's why untrained militias break and run when confronted by a regular army.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


[ Parent ]
Bowers should stop insulting us (0.00 / 0)
I think Nevada was a win for Hillary.  I'm not "buying into the MSM narrative"!  I think she won.  I have reasons.

Nevada demonstrates organizing styles.
Nevada demonstrates the impact of Obama going mushy on Reagan.
Nevada demonstrates how different constituencies are lining up.

But Bowers is showing a distinct trend:

People are sheeple.
People are only identity-determined.
People are dupes of the mainstream media if they agree with the MSM at any given point.

If this drumbeat were coming from David Broder, I'd just shrug my shoulders.  But from a so-called progressive ...

Look, if Obama ultimately wins the nomination by 1 delegate, I'll concede the error of my ways.  Until then ...

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


Obama supporter here (0.00 / 0)
And I think it's appropriate for the Obama spinners to highlight this aspect, the 13-12 delegate advantage.

But, Chris, cut the media some slack. Hypothetically, if Obama replicated this feat across all 50 states, and took more delegates, while losing the sum of popular primary votes, there's not a media outlet in the country that would try to invalidate the results of the convention. Some "Progressive" bloggers I know might, but that's all. :)

Anyway, I enjoy your posts. Good work.


As soon as delegate counts actually trump perception (4.00 / 1)
Then we can start going with your/Obama campaign's frame.

But do you think Iowa and New Hampshire always get such a tremendous amount of publicity and candidate face time because of their piddling number of delegates?  Obviously not.  It's all about perception, which drives later outcomes with a power that far, far exceeds the actualy number of delegates at stake in thoseo states.  That is beyond debating.

Nevada has even less delegates than either IA or NH, and we are barely further along in the process.  Perception is many, many times more important than actual delegates at this point.

If the race should somehow stay close through February 5, we might reach a point eventually where the actual number of beans you own counts more than your ability to convince future bean-ownership designators that they should designate their beans into your pile.  At that point, the focus should appropriate focus more on delegate counts than on momentum.  But we are not even in that neighborhood yet. 


Oh, I agree (4.00 / 1)
And that is what I don't like: perception has been structured around a different set of rules than those set down by the party to nominate someone for President. I agree that this is about perception: I just don't like the way perception is generated because it diverges from Democratic Party rules.

[ Parent ]
i think its fair to ask (4.00 / 1)
Why did you like the media driven narrative,or at least keep silent about it, when Clinton got "third" in Iowa? I didn't see you saying "au contrae" (sp) or noting that she actually came in "second"

How many times did you refer to Clinton as finishing third in Iowa?

I'm just saying, i think its fair to call the momentum based/narrative based/ process a load of crap, but much like what you said about the teacher's union lawsuit, the timing of your "revelation" seems conviently placed.


[ Parent ]
Pressuring States (0.00 / 0)
I'm surprised to see you so sanguine about the disenfranchisement factor at work here.  I think it would be a disaster for the party if the nominee lost the popular vote, but won on delegates.  I thought that when people were talking about Clinton doing it and I think that now that folks are talking about Obama.

We've been cheering the turnout, but how do think all those new voters are going to feel if it turns out their votes really didn't matter.

We shouldn't be just accepting this in any state.  It's bad for the party and bad for democracy.


I want (4.00 / 1)
the electoral college dumped, and I also want delegates determined differently. What I don't want is an inconsistent way of looking at results. Until there are changes to the system of nominating and elected presidents, I'd like reporting on the process to be consistent.

[ Parent ]
Do you ackowledge disagreement with the eventual math (0.00 / 0)
As I have read this morning the local LV paper.  No delegates have been awarded yet, and while Obama may end up with slightly more delegates than Clinton, he may end up with slightly less.

The NV Democratic Party, granted mostly aligned with Clinton, isn't ready to agree with the Obama math just yet.

That being said the real story of Nevada is the inside numbers.

Obama got crushed among the Latino vote. 

Obama got crushed among the Jewish vote.

Obama got crushed among the female vote.

Obama got beat soundly among the union vote.

Obama cleaned up among African Americans.

Obama's strength gets seriously watered down after SC.  His weaknesses become more important slices of the electorate.

So Axelrod can spin a win.  A few papers lead with a split.  But the vast majority called ran headlines with a Clinton win.

I think Clinton will take the headlines and the strong internal numbers, the eventual delegate split aside.


Re: the eventual math (0.00 / 0)
Nevada is only 7.3% African American. Obama's strength in Nevada was a whole lot more than that to get him 41% of the popular vote and 4 points behind Clinton. Going forward, half the states in the U.S. have a higher African American percentage than Nevada and that's most of the big states too.

[ Parent ]
Delegates are not determined by any of those demograhpics (0.00 / 0)
Current delegate projections are that Obama will have 13 national delegates, and Clinton 12. That isn't fixed, of course, but it is the projection. 

[ Parent ]
NoNoNoNoNo (4.00 / 1)
Obama did NOT win a majority of the delegates. It's not a question of "which matters more, delegates or popular vote". It's much simpler than that: Obama did not "win" a single delegate to the national convention. Not a single one. Either did Clinton. By the time the actual delegates, whether pledged to Clinton or Obama, are selected in May, there will almost certainly be only one Dem left. Nearly if not literally all of the 25 delegates will go to Denver and vote for the nominee. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW IS THE POPULAR VOTE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT WAS DECIDED TONIGHT.

I'm really confused why very smart people don't get that, unless they don't want to.


Delegates (0.00 / 0)
are what matter to the DNC. He won the most delegates in NV. So the media should spin each state that way instead of by popular vote.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox