« Are You Experienced? | Main | Make your Mark »

Democrats acting like Republicans in Nevada

You'll have to bear with me. I'm feeling a little queasy. This story came out a few days ago, but I haven't taken that close a look at it until today. I kind of figured it was too outlandish. Doesn't seem that way, though. In a transparent play in Nevada, some Clinton allies have filed a lawsuit to stop "at-large" caucuses from being held in some casinos on the strip:

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party's decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state's election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

That's right, a "complex mathematical formula." Basically twisting themselves in knots to make their case. Why? Because Barack Obama was endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union, and those particular caucuses are intended to make it easier for working restaurant employees to caucus. How do we know that? In part, because the Nevada State Education Association filed the lawsuit 2 days after the culinary union endorsed Obama. And because the teachers union's deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, is one of the founders of Senator Clinton's Nevada Women's Leadership Council. And, according to this ABC blog, four of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit originally voted for the "at-large" caucuses at a Nevada State Democratic Party meeting. And the plan with the "at-large" plaintiffs was subsequently approved the National Democratic Committee as well. So it basically wasn't an issue until Clinton supporters realized their candidate wasn't going to get the majority of those votes.

At a campaign stop, though, President Clinton does a good job at trying to spin the effort:

This is a one-man, one-vote country," he said. "Some people in Nevada are old fashioned. They think the rules should be the same for everybody and everybody's vote should count the same."

According to the "complex mathematical formula," each delegate at those "at-large" caucuses is worth more than delegates at "regular" caucuses.

How much you wanna bet that, if the roles were reversed, the Clinton campaign would be claiming the opposite? That this is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise voters who support them? And it's a sleazy Republican tactic?



From my experience it is only Democrats who want to disenfranchise votes. The final line "And it's a sleazy Republican tactic?" was thrown in a bait. But Democrats are the ones who do things like disallow military absentee votes, or hire Acorn to create non-existent voter roles, or slash tires of vehicles meant to help transport voters.

You forgot to mention that Democrats also turn children into militant gay drug addicts and were behind the 9/11 terror attacks. We all know that the Republican party is the benchmark for clean politics.


Obviously, your experience is very limited. Both Democrats and Republicans have histories of dirty tricks.

Remember the New Hampshire Republicans and phone-jamming? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/opinion/17mon4.html

Here's another example of Republicans at work: http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/11/allen-supporter-caught-on-tape-in.html

Great point, Dasher. You've really got to watch out for those knife wielding, tire slashing Democrats. It's like an epidemic!

I'd just like to take this opportunity to remind POLJUNK readers to lock their doors at night - you never know when a lunatic Democrat with a knife might show up at your door and slash your tires so you can't vote.

Kidding aside, this lawsuit by Clinton supporters is an aberration. That's why I highlight it. Democrats don't disenfranchise voters - history shows that the more people vote, the better Democrats do. That's why Republicans keep disenfranchisement in their kit of dirty tricks. It works for them!

Please, everyone. Tit for tat on election dirty tricks is a waste of time. What's more important is to dicuss the ethical judgement of those who engage in these tricks. I am not a fan of Clinton bashing as I think conservatives are pathological in their hatred of that family, but I agree with Mike that stooping to this kind of poltical maneuvering just bolsters the percecption that they'll do anything to win. That's good and bad politically, but it's ethically deplorable.

The sum of all this means that it will make it harder for some Democrats to support Hillary in the general election if she wins the nomination with these tactics. That's not good for anyone.

Post a comment

Get GLONO merch!