What’s that? Another rules change? Voters for nonviable delegatess can switch to other nonviable delegates in an attempt to make them viable? There’s one precinct being shown on CNN where Warren was one voter short of 15% in the first round of voting, but at least one person moved to Warren in the second round to make her viable, and she ended up with 6 of the precinct’s 15 county delegates.
Was that in the second round, or the first?
First.
It’s possible that what’s happening is, there’s some sort of “preliminary count” in the first round, which may not even include the early voters.
I hope that myself, the most diehard Sanders supporters, the most diehard Trumpers, and the most diehard neverTrumpers can agree:NO MORE FUCKING CAUCUSES!!!
Absolutely! Caucuses suck and should be banned.
538 says they swung a Biden supporter. One of their live updates also notes:
So I think we should remember this in future contested convention discussions. The people on the ground do not seem to be bound by the lanes determined by the chattering class.
CNN just showed the Bellagio precinct (one of the “strip caucuses” for casino employees who can’t make it to their home precincts because they are working today). It ended with “uncommitted” still having 2 voters, so, apparently, there is no requirement to switch to a viable candidate.
After the first round, 6 voted for Warren and 3 for Steyer; of these 9, 6 switched to Biden, 1 to Sanders (the only two viable candidates), and 2 to uncommitted.
First controversy to pop up: one precinct is listed as having 12 delegates on the delegate allocation spreadsheet at the Nevada Democratic Party site (and, if the number of registered Democrats listed is correct, 12 is correct), but the iPad app they are using insists that it only gets 8.
I’ve been an MSNBC addict for years now, but they are very depressed about Bernie now. They don’t think he can win I suppose, so they are not granting him any kind words or victory. The story is “what do we do!?” I believe that is a direct quote from Joy Reid.
Bernie by a lot, then Biden, Warren and Buttigieg.
Bernie has +50% right now but lots of tallies to come in still.
I wonder if Hallmark cards have a Thank You selection in Cyrillic.
Maybe the Democratic Elites can come up with something even more sinister, underhanded, and despicable then they did in 2016 to undermine Sanders.
Remember Chuck Todd, an MSNBC anchor, compared "Bernie Bros" to Nazi “brown shirts”.
And he was a moderator of the last debate (actually, I think he did a good job there).
The media hates Sanders.
Do you think a caucus is why Sanders won?
Serious question. Why do you think the media hates Sanders?
Six companies own most (by far…90%) media distribution in the US.
They are not liberal nor do those companies care one whit about liberal policies.
They very much want Republican tax cuts over Sanders’ taxing them.
Understood. All of the Democratic candidates are calling for corporate tax hikes, though, if I’m not mistaken.
Politicians say lots of things when running that never happen.
Sanders is the candidate who is most likely to try to impose taxes on these corporations.
He may not succeed but he will try harder to do it than the rest.
So you theory is that political commentators are simply acting on behalf of the owners to protect their jobs, or that the companies are actively seeking out commentators do do their bidding for them?
Yup.
See: Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press” as well as an MSNBC anchor comparing Sanders’ supporters to “brown shirts” (aka Nazis). That was about ten days ago.
I’d wager Chuck Todd is a very smart guy and knows better but he went there anyway. Why? Consider who holds his contract.
If you want more I can give you loads more.