DNC files motion in Nevada workplace caucus lawsuit

[Adelante]

The Democratic National Committee has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit brought by teachers union against the Nevada Democratic Party's plan for at-large precincts.

Read the motion here.

This means that the DNC wants to preserve the principle that state parties can determine their delegate selection rules, and then, having chosen those rules, submit them to the DNC for the approval.

A DNC official said the motion was filed because procedurally, it was the only way the party could file a brief in support of the party.

"Obviously, we support the Nevada state party and the previously recognized right of the national parties to set the rules for the nominating contests,"

The DNC fought Florida Democrats in court who charged that the DNC's decision to reject the Florida party's delegate selection date amount to an equal protection violation. The court sided with the DNC.

A judge was set to rule on a temporary restraining order yesterday...

BTW: it seems as if the DNC and the Clinton family are on the opposite sides of this debate.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/dnc_intervenes_in_nevada_atlar.php

[flpoljunkie]

1. "BTW: it seems as if the DNC and the Clinton family are on the opposite sides of this debate."

Indeed, it does.

[mod mom]

2. Don't forget how the DLC tried to undermine Howard Dean & his 50 state

strategy.

I'm glad the DNC is looking to include more voters and making access to voting easier. The Clinton team looks really bad here.

There's a good blog by Sen Kerry up at TPM electioncentral. Here's a link:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2008/jan/16/let_the_people_vote

[Adelante]

3. This is very much about the 50-state strategy

As are Florida, Michigan and Wyoming.

Thanks so much for that link!

[wyldwolf]

5. remind me again, how did they do that?

[mod mom]

7. "Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over "Rumfeldian" Incompetence"

Carville is not only a conniving traitor and seeing how Dean's strategy has been successful, I put that incompetence label on him:



Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over “Rumsfeldian” Incompetence
By Scott Shepard | Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 12:00 PM
Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.

Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.

The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.

Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.

-snip

http://www.coxwashington.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2006/11/15/carville_says_d.html

[wyldwolf]

8. so, a non-DLC strategist who had not worked in that capacity for years...

...equates to the DLC undermining Howard Dean. I guess only in the "progressive" bizarro world.

[mod mom]

10. Al From & Bruce Reid: (It's real easy to find Emmanuel, H Ford and others, just google)

WOODRUFF: Checking the headlines in our "Campaign News Daily," Senator John Kerry had planned to unveil his health care plan today in Iowa. Instead, he's back here in Washington to vote on the tax cut bill. Senator Kerry, along with fellow senators and White House hopefuls Joe Lieberman, John Edwards and Bob Graham, are all on the Hill ready to cast their no votes on the GOP plan. Kerry's health care speech now is scheduled for tomorrow in Iowa.

Senator Lieberman wants to hold more debates with his fellow Democratic hopefuls. The Lieberman campaign has sent letters to the other eight candidates proposing one televised debate a month until the nomination is decided, starting in July. The leaders of the centrist Democratic Leadership Counsel are taking aim at Howard Dean. In a memo, group founder Al Fromm and former Clinton aid Bruce Reid say Dean belongs to what they call the McGovern-Mondale wing of the Democratic Party. That's the wing, they say, that lost 49 states in two elections and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one. Howard Dean, for his part, has said repeatedly that his stands on the key issues are in step with most Americans.

-snip
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/15/ip.00.html

[wyldwolf]

11. OK, you've quoted someone with a negative opinion of Dean. I have one, too. How did that undermine

anything?

[mod mom]

12. Oh BTW...CLINTON CRONY Carville is now in the business of destroying lives around the world:

Globalism extends to the American way of campaigning, it seems, and the hubris of the gringo strategists — earnest ex-Clintonistas employed by James Carville’s Greenberg Carville Shrum group — would be hilarious if human lives and a country’s political will weren’t at stake.
It’s a galling and provocative experience to viewers of any political persuasion, and a reminder to the left of how easily idealism can run amok.

The Carville boys were hired by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a.k.a. ‘‘Goni,’’ a patrician Bolivian businessman who served a rough term as Bolivia’s president in the mid-’90s. Goni’s legacy was an unsuccessful program of ‘‘capitalization’’ (i.e., he welcomed foreign investment and watched foreigners get all the jobs).
By 2002, the time of filming, unemployment is through the roof and rural campesinos are agitating for political representation. Goni is old news and his poll numbers are dismal. Enter Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg Carville Shrum’s point man in Bolivia, an articulate manipulator of mass moods (and a fellow who bears an uncanny resemblance to Seth Meyers of ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ — reality parodies itself here better than any comic could).

-snip
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/06/30/a_campaign_in_bolivia_thats_made_in_america/

[wyldwolf]

14. so how did he have time to undermind Howard Dean? LOL!

[jasmine621]

15. "It seems..." Can you be a litlle more specific. Basis, proof etc.

I have heard her say anything about this.

[lapfog_1]

4. In their motion for the TRO, the plaintiffs explain the "10 to 1"

disproportionate weighting for At-Large caucus goers... here is my analysis of that motion...



It's from the lawyers FLAWED (and I mean FLAWED) apples to oranges comparison in their motion to obtain a TRO.

Here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/plainti...

end of page 3, top of page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, let's take this apart one thing at a time. First off, there is an incorrect word choice in this example. Precinct 1001 (the example home Precinct) does not have 261 registered DELEGATES, it has 261 registered VOTERS... it's a small thing, but motions should be correct. According to the Plan rules, 261 registered voters in a Clark County Precinct would get delegates at a ratio of 50 - 1, that is, 50 registered democratic voters to 1 delegate. So 261 / 50 = 5.2 or 5 as the example states. And her voice is the stated 0.019%. Here is where the apples to oranges comes in. The example of John voting in the At-Large Precinct at the casino states that 260 eligible voters SHOWED UP to select delegates. The example never states how many SHOWED UP to vote in Precinct 1001 where Jane voted. The Plan states that an At-Large Precinct needs 4000 or more workers to qualify, so the fair comparison is number of workers or 4000+ / 50 equals number of delegates. Not the 260 that the example states "showed up" to caucus. After all, perhaps out of the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001, lets say only 40 showed up to caucus. Jane would then have a weight given to her vote of 2.5%, a much HIGHER representation than John's.

You see why the plaintiff's lawyers had 260 showing up at the At-Large V. the 261 registered voters in Precinct 1001... because both of the groups have the SAME REPRESENTATION of 50 to 1 of registered voters... but they want to distort it by claiming that ALL VOTERS in the example precinct 1001 showed up but only got 5 delegates, whereas 260 showed up (out of 4000 potential voters) at the At-Large caucus and got 52 delegates. A convenient way to come up with the 10 to 1 ratio in the claims. But it's totally bogus.

Edit to add

Ohh, I just thought of something ELSE...

Jane's vote in her home precinct actually will count MORE (very slightly) than John's vote.
Follow me here... John and Jane both vote in precincts that award 50 to 1 delegates to eligible voters as has been demonstrated. However, John can't be in two places at one time, and in the example, John is a registered voter in the HOME PRECINCT (where Jane is voting), which means that the number of delegates awarded to that precinct is higher than it should be... because John (and all union members that are using the At-Large and who live in Precinct 1001) is not there to vote... so those who DO show up to vote in Precinct 1001 get the benefit of having MORE delegates to represent them.

To see this mathematically, use the same example the the lawyers wrote, only this time put in numbers that show EVERYONE caucusing (all 261 registered voters MINUS John and other working union members) and all 4000 At-Large eligible caucus voters. Jane actually gets a slightly LARGER voice than John (he is stuck at 50 to 1) because the number of delegates in her home caucus will include John and his co-workers (at the same 50 to 1 ratio).

[NoBorders]

6. So they DNC wants to stop the teachers union?

Call me dense, I just want to make sure I understand.

[cali]

9. no. the DNC wants to stop the bullshit political suit filed

by the teachers union.

[NoBorders]

13. That's what I meant

I'm an Obama supporter.

[mod mom]

16. No, the DNC wants to open access to voters.