Wash.Post - Here’s what happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention

[Lodestar]

Saturday's raucous state Democratic convention in Nevada encapsulated a lot of the themes of the party's 2016 election in a relatively short period: complex delegate math, instructable processes, allegations of deceit, fury — and a result that doesn't do much of anything to shift the race's eventual outcome.

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

The people who attend the Democratic convention this weekend were chosen during voting in early April. At that point, Sanders out-organized Clinton, getting 2,124 people elected to the state convention (according to the tabulation at the always-essential delegate-tracking site the Green Papers) to Clinton's 1,722. That suggested that voting at the state convention would flip: Sanders would win those 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 contests, giving him a 7-to-5 victory at the convention and making the state total 18-to-17 for Clinton instead of 20-to-15.

But that's not what happened, as best as we can piece together.

cont'd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/15/heres-what-happened-at-saturdays-dramatic-nevada-democratic-convention/

[ChiciB1]

1. Kicking To Read Later... Interesting! n/t

[NewImproved Deal]

2. The Clinton Machine fix is in...

[mooseprime]

3. Wa Post has been so explicitly anti-Sanders

it's very hard to consider their narrative in trying to figure out what happened.

i must say the image of all those police "defending" the stage seems emblematic of what a clinton administration would be like.

bird vs. police......hmmm.

[Demsrule86]

4. Very good article.

thanks!

[joshcryer]

5. Accurate.

The Sanders supporters falling to understand the process for realignment, getting angry, threw the whole thing into disarray. They fucked up.

[catnhatnh]

6. Not your fault but the title is total bullshit

It should read "Here’s what Ralston said happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention" because all the Post's "coverage" consists in cribbing from Ralston's tweets. And Ralston is full of shit.

[silvershadow]

7. The article doesn't read like an accurate reporting, either. No rec. nt

[hellofromreddit]

8. Glossed over the interesting part

That was when the vote to approve the rules as written — Roberta's Rules versus Robert's Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them — was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed — which is when the room, in Ralston's phrasing, "erupts." Ensuing speakers, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (a Clinton supporter), were interrupted by a vocal group of Sanders supporters at the front of the room.

"The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed...." is not a reasonable summary of that moment.

[JackRiddler]

9. Instructable?

Inscrutable, obviously. And that's in the lede!

Did you know? The Washington Post used to be a newspaper, with editors and copy editors and a multi-stage process leading up to publication.

Also, even when they were lying, they had this weird minimum journalistic standard that a report on something is actually a report by a reporter, from the place where the something happened, and not the repetition of alleged facts from someone's twitter account.