So essentially, the CWU gets to decide the nominee from NV

Not only do their "at large" votes count more than the individual precinct votes, but they get special rules on being able to caucus right at their place of work. Let me just point out that if they did something similar in WA state, say with Microsoft and Boeing, it would drown out the votes of every other person attending a neighborhood caucus in their precinct. In essence then, our state nominee would be choosen by Microsoft and Boeing.

I am not a Clinton supporter. I actually prefer Edwards, but this is complete BS. The CWU has a stranglehold on the NV state Dem party, and the DNC is going along as not to ruffle any union feathers. But it's still complete bullshit. Disenfranchises tons of NV caucus goers by giving a much louder voice to the unions.

cannot tell an individual state how to select it's own delegates as long as the procedure conforms with party rules, right, wrong or indifferent.

The sure as hell do have something to do with it. They approved it.

"The DNC, working with Nevada Democratic officials, approved the plan last summer to include the unusual at-large precincts housed in ballrooms at casinos along Las Vegas's famed "Strip"."

That's a prime reason why I don't give the DNC money any longer.

Any state would be wise to work with the DNC on its process for electing delegates lest they end up like FL or MI.

I don't like the setup either, but it apparently conforms with the rules.

the national convention is coming up and it could be approved at the convention. Better yet, propose a change to the Nevada Democratic Party rules. The Nevada Democratic Party is to blame. Not the DNC.

The DNC approves the rules. If they don't agree with the rules they can strip the state of their delegates just like they did in MI and FL. They, ultimately, have the final say.

agree with the rules. Where do you get your talking points?

Educate yourself.

back up their argument with facts, or those without enough self restraint to ignore posts they don't agree with without making the poster they disagree with disappear. LOL!

MagsDem, who proudly has ZERO people on ignore.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing! We're saying the same thing.

why are the three filing suit Hillary supporters who helped put the plan in place?

WTF?

No matter when or even if a complaint was ever launched. It doesn't become the right thing to do because no one complained about it sooner. I'd venture to bet most people didn't even know about it until recently. But your point is irrelevant -- it's still bullshit to basically let one group of people have a louder voice no matter who they collectively support.

went against her. Then, a suit is filed.

:shrug:

I have not seen anything that substantiates that. And even if that is true, what does that have to do with whether the process is fair TO THE VOTERS? I couldn't give a good GD about how Clinton or any other candidate feels about it for that matter. It's irrelevant to whether the process is fair to the voters as a whole in NV.

And try wrapping your head around the idea that our elections need your attention.

I'm actually on your side. :)

in setting up the Nevada caucus rules that allows the unions to have a bigger say than the average voter. I do pay attention, and I have not heard anyone but you make this claim that she had something to do with the DNC approving the at large caucus groups for the union workers.

So I ask again... can you prove your statement?

It's from Newsmax, which is a complete right wing rag, but still, if true it says the lawsuit filing process was going on prior to the endorsement. And even that is irrelevant.


YOUR CLAIM was that the Clinton campaign had a hand in designing the new caucus rules, and there is no indication of that anywhere by anyone. So again, your statement is not substantiated AT ALL.

Geez Louise.

Not only is Newsmax trash, but it doesn't even say that Hillary was okay with anything before the endorsement - it wasn't her lawsuit.

Defend her on her merits. This stuff is just stupid.

Maybe this is just what you need to do to run these days.

But there is a loop back to her campaign. Who else would want to suppress those votes?

... unfair advantage. Otherwise known as cheating, at least ethically speaking.

I oppose it because I just learned about it. I agree that knowledgeable dems at the state and national levels should have brought this to the attention of the nation much earlier. Of course, they might not have listened. It's human nature to put aside worrying things until they slap you in the face. This is truly slapping us in the face. Of course, it gives much more weight to the culinary union vote.

A help would be to equalize the amount of delegates to make the whole thing more equitable. I have nothing against them making it more convenient for people to caucus, if that opportunity is given throughout the state.

Also, union leaders should not be allowed in the room, nor should name takers. This is unconscionable. Anything that smacks of coercion should be punishable. I'm not talking about discussions and debate that normally go on in caucuses.

Additionally, only dems should be allowed in these caucuses. I believe independents should have their own caucuses. This practice is too easily manipulated by opposing parties for their advantage. No one should be allowed in without identification and residence proof. Busing of any type should not be allowed. Caucusing I believe should be a neighborhood thing; therefore, why would you need buses? Also, too easy to be manipulated by any candidate who has the money to influence. This should not happen.

We all should be demanding that caucusing should either not be allowed at all, or should be re-worked so that pugs cannot interfere and money is not used unduly for the disadvantage of candidates like Dennis Kucinich/Joe Biden, etc.

run its' own election. As long as it is legal I am willing to leave it to them. On the other hand where was all this anger and interest when the Clinton advocates were writing the rules?

You lost me on that one.

Last March, the Nevada Democratic Party came together and put together the rules of the caucus. Because of the high number of casino workers in Las Vegas, and because those workers have to work on weekends, the Democrats of Nevada decided to have special, at-large caucus sites in certain select areas (like right on the Vegas Strip) to give those working people a chance to make their voices heard. The Culinary Workers Union, who represents the workers, celebrated the move.

Suddenly, a mere days before the caucus, we now see a lawsuit to shut down those at-large sites and deny the casino workers their right to vote. Three of the plaintiffs voted for the very plan they’re now trying to block – reasonable people have guessed they’re changing their minds presumably because just a few days ago the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama.

Here’s the bottom line. I understand people gut it out to win on Election Day. But certain tactics make victory pyrrhic – empty – hollow – and it’s not worth winning if you lose what really counts in the process. And you know what, if the Culinary Workers had backed someone besides my choice in this race - I’d still say it’s right for every candidate to make sure these workers get to vote.

"Democrats of Nevada decided to have special, at-large caucus sites in certain select areas (like right on the Vegas Strip) to give those working people a chance to make their voices heard. The Culinary Workers Union, who represents the workers, celebrated the move."

"Like right on the Vegas strip" -- you mean ONLY on the Vegas strip. "Celebrated the move" -- no, used their party influence to make it happen. Come on now, not ALL workers in Nevada get this advantage, JUST THE CWU workers. In fact, it's the only state in the nation where A union (not all union workers, just THIS union) gets to basically pick the candidate.

It's a total sham. And mark my words, their will be voter intimidation galore from union bosses on these employees. Complete BS.

IT was the bog wigs of the State Democratic Party who put the plan together. Where was the outrage when they made the plan?

None of the rank and file voters, I would bet. The CWU arranged this behind closed doors with the state party machine, and you can bet the state party machine went along with it based on money donated from the union. As always, the best democracy money can buy, and it's disgusting.

They made proposals.
They received comments.
They were approved by the DNC which consists of DNC members from all 50 states.

I agree that only participants should be allowed into the caucuses. But, how many of the union leaders are voters and therefore eligible to participate?

Are name takers part of the process in caucuses? That procedure might not be feasible in caucuses as it is in a 12 hour day election.

I agree that only Democrats should be allowed to vote and independents should conduct their own caucus.

I agree only residents should be allowed to vote and busing should be prohibited. Iowa included.

would only represent 6 percent of the Navada total vote count. Secondly, it's not just Culinary workers who will be using these meeting areas, anyone, who works within a mile-and-a-half range of those sites can use them.

Let the people vote damnit. Let's not use Rethug tactics about this.

shift. Which means if you are a) not a CWU union member, b) don't work on the strip, and c) otherwise don't work on Saturday, you don't get to be part of the one "at large" delegate = 10 precinct delegates BS. This is not "let the people vote" -- this is let some people vote, and let their votes count for more.

influence but that is OK because they are...they are... they are.... PROFESSIONAL Democrats!. That's NO problem for a DEMOCRATIC party? The Democratic Primary system (in general) is sliced unfairly six ways to Sunday, and the Nevada system has been in place for months. If everyone had just stayed as oblivious as they HAD been, then everything would have gone off without a hitch.

I've had bosses who would have found ways to amke my life hell and/or fire me if they knew how I had voted.

And reports are already coming down that the some CWU reps won't let you caucus unless you caucus for the endorsed candidate. It's sad to see the Democratic party taking the same trend toward creating a bananna republic as the republicans have. No wonder none of our candidates has done much of anything to reform our voting system and get rid of paperless ballots. Maybe they LIKE being able to fix elections.

I am so disgusted with the attacks here about it.

It was approved months before, and we are supposed to pretend the Clintons are not behind the lawsuit.

I say Bull Hockey.

I am so disgusted.

It was definitely a back door deal to give the unions the only real voice. When was it publicized prior to the endorsement? It's definitely bull crap, but for the opposite reason you're suggesting, IMO. Let me guess, you're a Obama supporter? Me? I'm a democracy supporter, and their is nothing even remotely Democratic or democratic about the NV process.

You are just spinning and hoping some of it sticks.

It was known, it was approved.

It is a sorry effort by the Clinton supporters to hurt Obama, and even the state teachers distanced themselves from it.

You are just trying to cause trouble.

This has soured me on the Clintons forever. It is just like the FL and MI thing where her supporters undermined the whole state.

informed of the DNC machinations, how? The answer is they aren't. The CWU pulled a fast one here, with the assistance of the DNC. This is just another reason why the DNC can kiss my butt when they call asking for money from me.

And I am sick to death of you people saying, "I will never vote for Clinton now." As if you were ever going to anyway. What a load of BS.

the state party was right. And it is the Clintons who are pushing this out of control.

And tactics? LOL LOL LOL! The only "tactics" in play here are by the CWU to give its workers (and only its workers) an unfair advantage.

This is one of the nastiest efforts I have even seen.

Since when? You have done nothing to defend that it is a fair way to hold the voting, and I suppose that is because you can't. It's "nasty" why? These same people here who think it's okay for CWU members to have an advantage would cry bloody murder if we moved all the general election polling places to every corporate headquarters of huge companies, now wouldn't you?

Hell, we scream, as we should when poor neighboorhoods have one voting machine and hundreds of poor voters standing in line in the rain to get in, while rich neighboorhoods have 5 times as many machines. But this, no problem. Because it helps your guy, and for no other reason.

Since when? You have done nothing to defend that it is a fair way to hold the voting, and I suppose that is because you can't. It's "nasty" why? These same people here who think it's okay for CWU members to have an advantage would cry bloody murder if we moved all the general election polling places to every corporate headquarters of huge companies, now wouldn't you?

Hell, we scream, as we should when poor neighboorhoods have one voting machine and hundreds of poor voters standing in line in the rain to get in, while rich neighboorhoods have 5 times as many machines. But this, no problem. Because it helps your guy, and for no other reason.

As for union coercion, people should (and obviously will) be there watching and call foul. But the carciature of unions as top-down, corrupt control is a Republican one, and we should be embarrassed by it. As far as the Culinary union goes, Clinton campaigned for their support, too - surely her supporters don't mean to suggest that she would have courted the support of a corrupt union? As with everything else, once something goes Obama's way charges of unfairness suddenly surface.

Would it be okay if they gave them an unfair advantage in voting in the general election then? Like say come to their offices with a ballot and cup of coffee, wait for them to mark it, then send the ballots in limos to the actual voting places? I mean come on, why not make special rules for ever special interest group then, to give them as much unfair advantage as everyone else?

I wouldn't suggest workers should have an advantage in the general election, either.

at this stage? Why?

a 'special interest group'? That's a pejorative term used by republicans to denigrate minorities, workers and others who are seeking their fair share, not special consideration.

These are not workers in the generic sense, these are workers of one, particular, huge union. This bananna republic way of voting in NV clearly favors one group of workers over another. And yes, that makes them a special interest group.

That's basically what your "debunking" article says.

How is that "spotting Obama 5-6% points"? If turnout in any precinct is "overwhelmnigly pro-Obama", for instance at UNLV, isn't that supposed to give him an advantage in delegates? Isn't that kind of the whole point?

... in your neighborhood, and convince your neighbors to support your candidate. The point of a caucus is not to give a particular special interest group an unfair advantage in choosing the state's nominee.

I suppotred the right of the plaintiffs to take it to court, because I think that's the right process.

Now the ruling has come down. Play on.

... it didn't say the rules were fair, which is what this post is about. The state party and the DNC are going along with the union to give them an unfair advantage based on money donated to both, and you can take that to the bank.

But let's not kid ourselves that this process is fair to the voters in NV, or even non-CWU workers. It's not.

But the point of the court is to determine what is legal.

It's unfotrunate that the teacher's union and others didn't raise the issues earlier, which might have granted more time to make a case. But they didn't, and that's on them.

Who speaks for the average voter? Looks like no one does. They just get screwed, like always, by the special interest groups.

been better served by doing it sooner.

Just as I supported their right to go to court, I have to acknowledge their culpability.

... just do the right thing to start with? Is that too much to expect? No backroom deals made to fill party coffers? In this respect, the party is no better than the republicans that have made a career out of screwing voters.

their job site with union leaders running the caucus.


Vote for who you want to vote for vs. make sure your not the first when lay off time comes.

This isn't an exception made for all workers -- this is an exception made for CWU workers, only. It isn't unions having more power, it's the CWU alone having more power. It screws all other voters, and all other workers, period.

whatever the party makes them out to be in that state.

Their votes do not neccessarily count more than regular caucus votes, despite what the Clinton surrogates are pimping.

Second, the CWU and its affiliated unions represent something like 400,000 people out of the Nevada population of 2.5 million. Of course they're going to have an impact.

The CWU in Nevada is comprised of 60K workers, not 400K workers. Affiliated union doesn't mean jack since they don't also get the special right to caucus during the work break like the CWU workers on the LV Strip. Secondly, one "at large" delegate = 10 of the precinct delegates, so you are wrong there as well.

Same rules should apply across the board, same number of delegates should be awarded to each. It's BS back door crap being pulled off by the union that thinks only it should have say in who the nominee is from NV.

:)