Kudos to a local San Francisco ABC affiliate political reporter, who actually asked Bill Clinton about the Nevada Teacher’s Union lawsuit that I mentioned a couple of days ago. Watch Clinton’s testy response:
There are some…..factually challenged bits to that response, however. *If* turnout were incredibly low in the casino caucuses and incredibly high in the regular precinct caucuses, Clinton would be right in warning that votes cast in the at-large casino caucuses could be worth “five times, maybe even more” than votes cast at regular precinct caucuses. However, it’s a flat-out lie that this feature of the Nevada caucuses was only recently discovered. It’s been known for months.
In truth, it’s not just the at-large casino caucuses which is at odds with “one-man, one-vote.” The regular Democratic precinct caucus rules, which have been known for months, state that in rural parts of Nevada, five people are needed to produce one delegate…..but in Clark County (home to Las Vegas), 50 people are needed to produce one delegate.
Democrats in Nevada (and in Iowa, actually) structured their caucuses this way in order to encourage candidates to campaign in rural parts of the state. Everybody knew this, and nobody had a problem with it. Until the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama.
A federal judge has set a hearing today to help determine the legitimacy of the at-large casino caucuses, and the Nevada caucuses themselves take place on Saturday.
Here’s hoping that the Clinton machine isn’t able to pull this bullshit maneuver. You don’t change the rules just because it looks like you’re going to lose.
4 Replies to “Clinton on the NV lawsuit”
Of *course* you do. If you can get away with it. That’s what politics in America has devolved to.
Of course you change the rules when it looks like you are going to lose.
That’s how revolutions start. Looks like you are going to lose the argument over taxation without representation? The rules fully support it? Ok, change the rules, by force if necessary.
Besides being an Obama supporter, whyfore all the Clinton-hate comin’ from you, bro? I would consider a few months to be “recent,” even in political terms.
Twofold question, twofold response:
1) I was an ardent supporter of Bill during his Presidency. What I have problems with is dynasticism and cronyism, and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton has that in spades. So it’s not so much Clinton-hate (although, troublingly, that is what every critic is getting painted with) as it is Crony Dynasty Hate.
2)Months is not recent in politics, at all. We’re talking a profession that measures things in weekly cycles. Plus, the caucus rules were voted on by the Nevada Dem party, passed, and then were discussed and ratified by the National party. My point is that this wasn’t a “sudden suprise” as he was contending.