Clark County (NV) Democratic county convention recesses without electing delegates [updated]

Massive turnout statewide for Democratic county conventions in Nevada today. In all-important Clark County, the county party lost control of the credentialing process resulting in a recess without delegates being elected (and potentially jeopardizing the Nevada delegation to the national convention).

I'll post some MyDD-specific analysis from the floor in a side diary for for those not interested in such inside baseball. For those interested, here's some some detailed local blog coverage and a good story from the Las Vegas Sun. My own suggestions, posted in my own name, on how to fix this mess are on the Nevada progressive blog My Silver State.



Display:


whoa (none / 0)

Caucusin' ain't easy.


by blueflorida on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST

Re: whoa (none / 0)

Also, I can only imagine the absolute madness if this system were brought to a state like Florida.


by blueflorida on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

recesses without electing delegates (none / 0)

Democrats be fired up.  Good.


by global yokel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:10:41 AM EST

Re: Clark County (NV) Democratic (none / 0)

What a mess.  How does something like this happen?


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:13:00 AM EST

Nevada Convention (none / 0)

I'm not getting bent out of shape about the convention snafu in Clark County Nevada.  The only thing it tells us is that the people in charge of logistics out there didn't anticipate the size of the crowd that actually showed up to participate.  That's just a local glitch, and isn't symptomatic of a national problem.  We've never seen this kind of enthusiasm and turnout in the Democratic Party before, so I'm taking the attitude that it's something to celebrate, not something to lament.  The Republicans are probably wishing they were lucky enough to have a problem with excessive attendance...


by global yokel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:47:11 AM EST

Re: Nevada Convention (none / 0)

Its local but it hurts us nationally. Clark County is going to be very much an epicenter in the 08 elections.

That said, I don't think people need to get bent out of shape but I do think its a call for more of the thoughtful and informative discussion about organizing and communicating on this site that helps people become effective local activists -- rather than using the site merely as a sounding board for campaign spin.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary = Toast (Frank Rich Nails It....) (none / 0)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinio n/24rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


by global yokel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST

Re: Hillary = Toast (Frank Rich Nails It....) (none / 0)

Brutal, but essentially accurate.  Obama's field team is perhaps the best-run in the history of presidential races.  I would not be surprised if he won Texas handily, especially since it isn't even clear if the Clinton campaign understands the rules of that primary/caucus yet.


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:22:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Numbers (none / 0)

I don't understand. Isn't the number of delegates elected to the county convention a fixed number that's not dependent on turnout? These people were selected at the precinct-level caucuses, and there was a large turnout at those, but that doesn't affect how many delegates each sends, right? What am I misunderstanding?


DC Drinking LiberallyDC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:19:18 AM EST

Re: Numbers (none / 0)

Isn't the number of delegates elected to the county convention a fixed number that's not dependent on turnout?

Yes, precisely. Apparently the county party leadership either figured that, as in past years, a large % of elected delegates wouldn't show at the county convention or simply booked the largest room they could afford and hoped a significant proportion of elected delegates wouldn't show.

Another part of the story is the alternates. Part rules allow an unlimited # of altnerates to show up incase elected delegates don't show. Both campaigns sought to mobilize unelected party registrants to show up as alternates -- and then sought to seat those alternates without credentials, to occupy the room. The county party should have made clear to the campaigns not to do this but they didnt.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Numbers (none / 0)

Thanks. I'm shocked that in past years lots of delegates haven't shown up. Yet another bit of unpredictability and possible undermining of the vote that the caucus system has that the primary system avoids. I guess that's because the choice of nominee has been a foregone conclusion in previous years, but it seems obvious that people would show up this time.


DC Drinking LiberallyDC for Democracy

by KCinDC on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Numbers (2.00 / 1)

what you're missng is that all throughout the country the "elected delegats" aren't really elected.  Most states have some selection process that either adds, changes, or 'validates" the the caucus or election.

This is part of the untold media spin from the msm and obama campaign about how "the will of the people"  are invested in the delegate process.

This is b.s.

The delegate process is really more for party building and inside jockeying rather than picking a president.


by yellowdem1129 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Numbers (none / 0)

Well, those processes are (as fully described in DNC rules and overseen by the DNC) elections -- or rather should be when they function. The way our convention should have worked, the delegates elected on Jan 19 from each assembly district should have elected delegates to the state convention.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (2.00 / 0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOMe5SUpR -A

Taped earlier today, this isn't a pleasant thing to watch.  I think this is a clear indication that it's over.  
 


by global yokel on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:26:21 AM EST

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (2.00 / 0)

You mean like how Clinton lied about his stance on abortion in NH?  Anyway, in what way did he lie?  With regards to NAFTA, Clinton's own book praises the legislation.  With regards to health care, Clinton has never been clear as to the enforcement provisions that she would adopt, and wage garnishment and other forced payments have never been ruled out.  By all means they should explore these issues in the next debate, but where specifically is the lie?


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (2.00 / 1)

A certain amount of enthusiasm is healthy, but I just don't see the cause for hatred of either candidate that some are expressing.  The fact is that Clinton herself has engaged in questionable campaigning during the primary, i.e., New Hampshire and the various pronouncements against the Nevada caucus system.  Even if one disagrees with the slant of Obama's fliers, they don't say anything that wasn't raised in the last debate and they have a factual basis.  Clinton's outrage over fliers that have run for weeks, and which don't say anything new, strikes me as manufactured.


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:27:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (none / 0)

On NAFTA, from Living History, p. 182:  "Creating a free trade zone in North America ... would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization."

Here are additional instances in which Clinton praised NAFTA:

http://www.credoaction.com/sirota/2008/0 2/hillary_clinton_pretends_she_n_1.html


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (none / 0)

Water hen? How about acknowledging that you asked for a quote from her book in support of NAFTA and you got one, page number and all?

You got owned. So like a good Hilbot, you ignore the spanking and move on to your next phony talking point. Pathetic.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is not an embarrassment to the party.  Speak for yourself because as far as I am concerned, I have never been more proud.  I am glad that she finally spoke out against these outrageous tactics by the Obama campaign.  I actually feel more rejuvenated and reinvigorated by this.  


by Jessica1980 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Losing It Onstage.... (none / 0)

I guess its good that Rezko's under indictment then, I mean that we he can't be appointed Assistant AG (Webb Hubbell). Seriously, don't play this game, its like the knife v. gun thing in the Untouchables: You bring up  Ayers we counter with the pardon of members of the Weather Underground, and Cop-maiming FALN scum, you bring up Rezko we counter with AG Webb Hubbell, etc.


by Socraticsilence on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (none / 0)

The Clark county problems are going to lead the news cycle.  We had a relatively smooth convention in Reno. I'm sure that the other counties had good conventions, but the media is going to focus on the Clark problems.


by NvDem on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:10:21 AM EST

Re: Unfortunately (none / 0)

Probably right. All the more reason we need new leadership in the Clark County party.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

electing delegates (none / 0)

This nomination fight has to end. It's too devisive and it's not good for us Democrats to have so much intra-party fights, etc. I think Hillary should stand down for the good of the party.


by obamania on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST

Re: electing delegates (none / 0)

Let them fight for a while.  What it does is build Democratic infrastructure in states that have not yet been visited.  I don't think that it has become harmful with respect to our efforts against McCain as of yet.


by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: electing delegates (none / 0)

I don't think yesterday's snafu can be blamed on so much on campaign infighting as on an utterly incompetent county party leadership. Yes, the problem was magnified by the efforts of the Clinton campaign to turn out large numbers of people as alternates and guests to pack the house and make a strong showing -- but that is also what we as Democrats all want. The lack of preparation by the county party, both logistically and politically, is the sine qua non of this disaster.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:50:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: electing delegates (none / 0)

 What freaking planet do you live on ? Maybe you shouldnt alienate those who havent voted yet. Its a process let it play out.


by patti on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clark County (NV) Democratic county convention (none / 0)

What heralds the end here is not so much what she said -- standard lies and distortions, Clinton campaign boilerplate -- but how she said it, after being so wonderfully proud of being onstage with Obama. Before that, the Xerox line. Before that, she can't answer the question of whether Obama is ready to be CinC.

It's the erratic tone that presages trouble; nasty, nice, nasty, nice. Her tone is all over the map -- she's running a bipolar campaign.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST

Re: Clark County (NV) Democratic county convention (none / 0)

Kinda off topic here aren't we?


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.