NV Clark County convention: How it looked on the floor

From the diaries, a great on the ground look at a largely untold story from yesterday - Todd

Here's some ground-eye view of what went on yesterday in Las Vegas, where the Clark County democratic party convention collapsed into chaos and recessed without electing delegates. I laid out the rough outlines here

.

The convention was one of 17 county conventions held yesterday, at which the roughly 10,000 delegates elected statewide (of which just under 8000 were elected in Clark County) were to elect the delegates for the state convention to be held in May. (Clark County elects just under 2300 state convention delegates, of about 3200 state convention delegates.)

Results from elsewhere in the state favored Obama; in Washoe county, he won 59% of the delegates, a gain of several % points over his January 19th performance. Statewide results (pdf) (minus Clark, of course) gave Obama an advantage of 512-388 in delegates, or 57-43 in percentage .

Some local Clark County color after the jump.


Since there has been so much discussion on this site about delegates, its worth knowing that both campaigns are taking the entire process quite seriously. The Clinton campaign had national staff (Karen Hicks, Terry McAuliffe) in for the county convention and held organizational meetings to put together at least the appearance of a  floor operation. (I don't know how well those whips would have functioned if actual floor voting had taken place). Obama's campaign was very well organized but didn't have actual floor whips in evidence.

The key issue was over the credentialing of alternates as delegates. At 10:30 am, the rules stated that credentials for delegates who had not yet signed in would be given to alternates. County party rules allow an unlimited number of alternates to attend and to be credentialed in place of delegates who do not show. In principle, alternates should replace delegates from the same precinct and from the same presidential preference.

However, two things led to the chaos. First, the county party did not, as it should have, make pre-registration for delegates or alternates very easy. This could have and should have been done online; instead, a pdf form was posted on the website but had to be mailed in 7 days in advance of the convention. The county party apparently never sorted out the actual list of elected delegates from those precincts who did not report results from January 19th (this non-reporting due in part to the selection of precinct caucus secretaries based on presidential preference (ie, a majority voting for someone from their own preference group) rather than selecting the volunteer who had been to the county party's training). The party also never, because it did not have adequate pre-registration, assigned alternates to a particular delegate slot (in the same precinct and preference group), which would have facilitated the credentialing.

Second, the turnout of alternates was massive. The Clinton campaign used mass emails, pre-recorded calls as well as phone banking from predictive-dialer call centers to contact not only every elected delegate but also their entire contact list, in hopes of holding their delegate slots in case of no-shows (and presumably trying to pick up slots in case of Obama supporter no-shows) and of making a strong showing on the convention floor.  The Obama campaign, as far as I know, contacted their precinct captains who in turn contacted their delegates to ensure turnout; and they phone banked elected delegates not on their own supporter lists (like me).

This massive turnout lengthened the lines, which in and of itself would not have been a problem. However, with even those  who had pre-registered being forced into the same line with unregistered delegates and alternates, the line became enormous -- disrupting gaming operations on the Bally's casino floor and making it impossible for delegates to pick up their credentials by the mandated hour of 10:30. On top of which, by 10:30 so many alternates had entered the convention hall that the Fire Marshall ordered it sealed off.

At that point, two interesting things happened. First, the Culinary showed its impressive discipline by pulling all its delegates off the floor. At first this appeared to be a protest, but in fact it was simply to create space in the hall to prevent a crisis. As I saw it appeared very much that both Obama and Clinton delegates (the Obama ones wearing Culinary for Obama t-shirts, the Clinton ones wearing Clinton t-shirts) both responded to the call for Culinary members to gather.

Second, the organizers efficiently pulled the alternates out of the room into a holding room. That much was smart. But then, without any public address system to speak to the hundreds of alternates in the holding room or to those in line, the credentials began to be distributed to alternates, even though many delegates remained in line awaiting their credentials. I've heard lots of versions of what went on for those 20 to 30 minutes but what became clear by 11:30 was that enough credentials had been handed out to alternates without recording precinct or presidential preference that the vote had been irrevocably compromised. An estimated 4000 delegates had been credentialed and another estimated 3500 elected delegates or eligible alternates were still in line.

During this time, the balloting was open; a preference poll was taken among delegates at the sign-in tables (the announced results from Saturday am as of 10am gave Clinton a slight lead, of less than 5%; combined with Friday night's announced straw poll results, the straw poll was almost dead even; Clinton 2080, Obama 2076.) THe actual ballots for delegates however were being collected in cardboard boxes being carried around the hall by hand, leading (inevitably) to rumors of ballot-box stuffing and of ballots being dumped. There was, in short, nothing close to ballot integrity.

Then the party leadership showed its lack of transparency. Claiming the problem was merely one of massive turnout, the convention chair proposed that the convention be recessed. His motion was couched in parliamentary language so obtuse that it was clear even he didn't understand what he was saying. Seated delegates revolted, shouting objections from the floor and when a voice vote was held, the nayes were evidently in the majority. I expected the chair to declare for the ayes and gavel the convention into recess, and I fully expected a riot. (I also used the opportunity to fulfill a lifelong dream of shouting at a democratic convention "The Whole World is Watching!"). In the event, he declared the nayes to be the majority and since the convention had not yet been formally opened, simply left the podium

.

I left for lunch and only hours later did it become clear that the executive board spent most of the day conferring with the state leadership of each campaign and I'm told, the state and national party offices, to determine that they had no choice but to recess the convention. To get the delegates to accept this, a motion was introduced for a caucus of each presidential preference group. This too was loudly voted down by voice vote (which is why I don't think the floor whips for Clinton would have been able to do much had their been any actual floor votes been taken. Still, the chair this time did declare for the ayes, and in the preference group break-outs, the Obama delegates vented their anger. The Clinton group, by contrast, was much calmer. After about 30 minutes, the full convention (such as it was) reassembled and a voice vote was taken to recess, which passed by a loud majority.



Display:


thanks for the 1st hand report (2.00 / 1)

Amazing.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:54:18 PM EST

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (2.00 / 1)

Wow. I'm glad you fulfilled your dream. Somebody got something out of the day. Direct democracy, a phrase I heard somewhere. Not for the faint of heart.


by EMTP democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (2.00 / 1)

I was at the Nevada caucus at Las Vegas High School and here is a picture of one of the sign in tables. All of them looked like this. They were decorated with hillary signs and balloons. it was like walking into a hillary clinton event, not an election/caucus site. Most of the democratic party "leaders" who staffed it were wearing hillary shirts and stickers. I don't trust the results from the Clark County democratic primary AT ALL.
by espoir on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:37:14 PM EST

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (none / 0)

"the Obama delegates vented their anger. The Clinton group, by contrast, was much calmer."

I am afraid this will be the way all the way to Denver. And when Doug Wilder, a former elected official STATES there will be violence, it makes me very nervous for what is to come. My cousin was beaten almost to death in Chicago in '68. Chicago politics is a nasty thing.

Thanks for the update and for braving the fire.


by Artiste on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (2.00 / 2)

I'm afraid you misunderstood. What I meant was that the Obama supporters seemed much more upset by the evident malfeasance by the party leadership than the Clinton supporters did. One can draw one's own conclusions about what that means. To me, it means that the county party leadership must be under no illusions about the confidence in crisis it is facing.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (2.00 / 2)

I should also add that the Obama preference group caucus was held off the main convention floor in a separate holding room; the Clinton preference group remained on the convention floor for its caucus. When this was announced, many Obama supporters initially refused to move, until the state chairman Steven Horsford went to the podium to ask them to.

It was another case of the party leadership not understanding that many Democrats in the county simply distrust them; that distrust wasn't the result of any sort of Chicago corruption or what Doug Wilder said; it was because the county party has repeatedly fouled up organizational matters and because, as the individual upthread pointed out with the photo, there was legitimate basis for perceiving no sense of impartiality on the part of the county party leadership, going back months.


by desmoulins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NV Clark County convention (none / 0)

Is it the leadership or fighting factions that won't lay aside their own agendas at the expense of the Party and therefore undercut the leadership?


by NvDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NV Clark County convention (2.00 / 1)

I guess what I see is simply incompetence by the county party chair which is related to his inability to work effectively with the campaigns to ensure the integrity of the process. I think the agendas of the campaigns are clear -- to win delegates. Its not clear what the agenda of the party chairman is.


by desmoulins on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NV Clark County convention: How it looked on t (none / 0)

It would be nice if the Clintons would drop out of this before it exposes lots of state parties not up to handling their official procedures.

On the other hand, it would be nice to see these problems in the system shaken out in a race where it won't make any difference in the end result.  Sure, Obama is the all-but-certain nominee in this contest but someday a corrupt party chair or congressman will be challenged in state convention and we'll need solid procedural discipline to remove him in the face of the local machine.

There are lots of states beyond Nevada that could use a wake up call.


Read Brian's Utah Weblog
by Brian Watkins on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:11:55 PM EST

Maybe what we need. . . (none / 0)

. . . instead of "the Clintons" (nice) dropping out, is a transparent and democratic nominating process restricted to registered Democrats only.

Some of the features such a process should embody are: (1) no caucases--let the voters vote by secret ballot and get on with their lives; (2) all primaries "closed"--it costs nothing to be a Democrat, no dues, no obligation to attend meetings, nothing. Anyone who can't bother, or can't "commit" to registering for our party should have no say in choosing our nominee; (3) no more bullshit concern about "congressional districts" or "rural areas"--in November, the state will either vote for a Democrat or not, CDs simply don't matter, nor does some misplaced "concern" for rural voters. A rural voter is no better than any other voter. All votes in a state should count the same. The delegates from a state should be awarded on a state-wide proportional basis, with a minimum cut off to discourage fringe candidates and a small bonus awarded to the candidate with a statewide majority or plurality; (4) no superdelegates--we are all adults, if we choose a bad candidate, so be it; and (5) tell Iowa and New Hampshire to get stuffed--I have had more than a bellyful of these self-righteous rustic windbag crybabies insisting on their anti-democratic primacy to be "first in the nation." There is nothing laudible or special about these two unrepresentative states. Every state should be allowed to schedule its primary whenever it likes between Jan 1 and the convention, or, if that is deemed unacceptable, some other system (regional primary, rotating primary, lottery drawing, whatever) should be used to determine the order of voting. The idea that 2 of the most populous states, both potentially critical to our success in Novemember, shouldn't "count" just to appease the self-important idiots in Iowa and NH is beyond absurd.


by freemansfarm on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least we Iowans (none / 0)

know how to run a county convention.
by jdeeth on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: At least we Iowans (none / 0)

Y'all know a lot of things we don't. By the way, when does/did Iowa hold its county conventions?


by desmoulins on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe what we need. . . (none / 0)

Not every state forces you to join or declare for a party.  In Illinois I have NEVER been asked to join the party or fill out some sort of official paperwork or gotten some kind of id card, etc.  We just simply declare at ballot time.  So you have a LOT of work to do to change all that.  Also, the reason a lot of states do primaries is due to the costs involved.  Primaries are MUCH more expensive.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (2.00 / 1)

Freemansfarm:  I understand Hillary supporters have become anti-Caucus, since she has lost every single one (save Nevada, sort-of, it would seem).

Caucuses generally tally "strong support" only;  They also cost virtually nothing, where state Primaries can cost millions.  Further, Caucuses are a boon for local Party business (in the case of Iowa, proposed Party Platform additions are the heart of the Caucus after the Presidential Preference portion is over) and getting people involved in the Party.

Iowa and New Hampshire understand how to hold their Nominating contests.

After seeing this debacle in Nevada, are you not asking yourself whether we want the first nominating contests to be in States showing this type of incompetence?

Because insert Indiana and Nevada for Iowa and New Hampshire, and that's exactly what you'd have.

The fact that Iowa and N.H. have performed flawlessly every single time has been totally forgotten in this anti-Caucus anti-First-States claptrap that has come to dominate Democratic nomination discussions.

I live in New York City (Brooklyn), and I am the first to say I would never want the machine-driven, corruption-riddled New York Democratic Party to be in control of tallying the first votes cast for the Democratic nomination.  Never.


by miguelpakalns on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pretty simple (none / 0)

Yes, caucases are cheap. But then, you get what you pay for, don't you? Even in Iowa, home of the well-run caucas, people have to spend all night, listen to long, boring speeches from local, would-be William Jennings Bryans, stand in "corners," and otherwise generally degrade themselves, simply to get their vote registered. Let the State party "build" itself, and get people involved, in some other way. In any event, it seems to me that the state parties in States without caucases are no "smaller" and no less successful than those in the caucas states. After all these years of "party building," how come everyone in Iowa is not a party member by now?

As for New Hamspshire, it holds a primary. A primary is a pretty simple thing, and it seems to me every State that attempts to do so is quite capable of it. One need not drink the water of the White Mountains to "flawlessly" hold a primary. To state otherwise is to fall for "claptrap."

Finally, I am also a New York City Democrat. And I see no problem with our State having the first primary. In fact, we had our primary here on SuperTuesday, without a hint of an incident.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:22:31 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.